EXCHANGE 


I 


Repetition  in  Latin  Poetry 


SPECIAL   REFERENCE  TO  THE   METRICAL 
TREATMENT  OF  REPEATED  WORDS 


HUBERT  McNEILL  POTEAT 


REPETITION    IN    LATIN    POETRY 

WITH 

SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE 

METRICAL  TREATMENT  OF 

REPEATED  WORDS 


Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the  Requirements 

for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 

in  the  Faculty  of  Philosophy 

Columbia  University 


HUBERT  McNEILL  POTEAT 


NEW   YORK 
1912 


PREFACE. 

Some  account  of  the  work  previously  done  in  the  field  which 
this  treatise  seeks  to  cover  will  be  found  in  Chapter  I,  and  in 
the  opening  pages  of  Chapter  II.  It  is  necessary  here  only  to 
make  a  statement  of  the  editions  followed  in  the  citations  from 
the  Latin  authors.  For  Ennius,  Vahlen2  (1903)  has  been  em- 
ployed ;  for  Plautus,  Lindsay ;  for  Terence,  Dziatzko ;  for 
Lucilius,  Marx;  for  Varro,  Riese;  for  Lucretius,  the  Oxford 
text.  All  the  other  quotations  (with  a  very  few  minor  excep- 
tions) follow  the  Teubner  texts. 
Lakeville,  Connecticut,  HUBERT  McNEiLL  POTEAT. 

February  2,  1912. 


254401 


< 


CHAPTER  I. 
INTRODUCTION. 

So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn,  no  single  work  in 
English  deals  with  the  subject  of  this  thesis.  In  1902  Pro- 
fessor Frank  Frost  Abbott  published  an  interesting  article, 
entitled  The  Use  of  Repetition  in  Latin  to  Secure  Emphasis, 
Intensity,  and  Distinctness  of  Impression1.  He  discussed 
briefly,  with  only  a  few  examples,  Gemination  (nos,  nos  con- 
sules  desumus),  Imperfect  Gemination  (ergo  igitur;  sed  autem; 
quasi  velut),  Double  Expressions  (metuoque  et  timeo),  the 
Figura  Etymologica  (sermtutem  servit),  the  Repetition  of  a 
Grammatical  Device,  such  as  double  frequentatives,  double 
diminutives,  and  the  double  gradation  of  adverbs  (bene  plane; 
magis  potius).  He  takes  up  no  metrical  questions. 

In  the  same  year  Professor  A.  B.  Cook  had  an  article  in 
The  Classical  Review,  16.146-158,  256-267,  on  Unconscious 
Iterations.  This  theme  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the 
present  paper,  which  deals  with  conscious  repetition.  A  part 
of  his  introductory  paragraphs  may,  however,  be  quoted,  as 
giving  the  opinion  of  a  scholar  concerning  the  field  open  to 
investigators  of  conscious  repetition :  "In  setting  aside  as  irrele- 
vant to  my  topic  the  phenomena  of  conscious  and  purposed 
iteration  I  cannot  but  express  a  hope  that  they  may  some  day 
meet  with  the  attention  that  they  deserve.  The  popular — per- 
haps one  should  say,  the  instinctive — appreciation  of  rime2  and 
refrain,  with  its  far-reaching  consequences  in  prose  as  well  as 
in  verse,  is  a  theme  by  no  means  exhausted ;  while  the  scien- 
tific study  of  such  rhetorical  tropes  as  depend  for  their  effect 
on  iteration  has  hardly  begun.  These  and  many  other  adja- 

-   J 
1  University   of    Chicago    Studies    in    Classical    Philology,   3    (i90l).3^~ 

3  Since  this  paper  deals  with  the  repetition  of  words  and  combina- 
tions of  words,  matters  of  rhyme  and  alliteration  are  passed  over 
entirely. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

cent  subjects  offer  abundant  material  for  future  investigators"3 
Few  English  or  American  editors  of  Latin  poets  have  noted 
with  care  or  thoroughness  the  phenomenon  of  repetition;  many 
have  been  content  to  pass  striking  examples  of  it  with  the 
barest  mention.    Thus  Conington  on  Aeneid  3.523-524  merely 
repeats  the  seven-word  comment  of  Servius  on  the  repetition 
of  rtaliam     On  the  other  hand,  T.  A.  Page,  in  his  edition  of 
[oraces  Odes  (1886),  has  many  interesting  and  illuminating 
olated  comments  on  the  poet's  mastery  of  repetition  and  of 
e  variety  of  effects  gained  by  its  use*.    In  his  fullest  note  on 
e  metrical  side,  that  on  1.32.11,  he  says:  "When  the  Roman 
s  repeat  a  word  they  often  place  it  so  that  the  ictus  falls 
ifferently  on  it  in  the  two  positions  ...   in  consequence  of 
ondness  the  poets  often  absolutely  alter  the  quantity  of 
.  word  when  they  repeat  it".     This  statement  will  be  dis- 
cussed later  (page  44). 

In  his  Lucretius  (first  edition,  1864,  fourth  edition,  1886) 
Munro  has  two  brief  notes  on  repetition.    On  4.1259,  crauavl 
mvemant  hguidis  et  liquida  crassis,  he  notes  only  one  of  the 
etncal  phenomena,  the  variation  in  liquidis  .  .  .  liquida      He 
says  nothing  of  the  metrical  correspondence  in  crassa       crassis 
the  fact  that  Lucretius  is  following  a  method  very  com- 
in  the  Latin  poets,  that  of  combining  identical  and  variant 
etncal  treatment  of  repeated  words  (see  below,  pages  46-47, 
49,  etc.).    His  note  on  2.452  is  equally  brief. 

Messrs.  Haskins  and  Heitland,  in  their  edition  of  Lucan 

Ion,  1887),  several  times  make  mention  in  the  notes  of 

repetition  (see  e.  g  on  5.348-350;  6.257-259;  7-551,557;  8.194- 

196).    In  the  Introduction,  the  work  of  Mr.  Heitland   there  is 

section  (pages  Ixxxi-lxxxii)  dealing  with  the  poet's  "care- 

less repetition  of  words". 

3  1  have  not  been  able  to  get  W61fflin's  article  on   Die  Gemination 
im   Lateimschen,   published   in   the   Sitzungsberichte   der   Koniglichen 
Bayenschen  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften   (Munich    1882) 
Compare  his  notes  on  Cam,  !.2.4>  32.n,  35.15;  ^'     :        lg 
-      Epod.  4.20:17.1,7.    See  also  Professor  C.  H.  Moore's  notes  on 

35'5'  6' 


2i42  '     '  '      , 

,14.1-2,    ,6.33-36,   17.9-12,   19.5-8:  3.3.16-18,  etc.,  and  his  Introduction 

pages  32-33;  Professor  Shorey  on  Carm.i.I3.i. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  3 

Professor  E.  A.  Sonnenschein,  in  his  critical  note  on  Plautus, 
Most.  12  (first  edition,  1884),  called  attention  to  the  change 
in  metrical  accent  in  sine  modo,  12,  as  compared  with  that  of 
the  same  words  in  1 1 .  He  then  quotes  Hermann,  De  R.  Bent- 
leio  eiusque  editione  Terentii,  xxx,  thus :  "ubi  repetiti  verbi  vel 
maior  est  vel  minor  vis,  vel  quocumque  modo  alia  ratio,  etiam 
pronuntiari  debet  aliter".  He  then  adds  himself:  "But  even 
apart  from  any  'alia  ratio',  we  find  the  accent  constantly  varied, 
when  a  word  is  repeated  in  the  same  or  the  following  verse". 
He  considers,  then,  only  repetition  with  variant  metrical  treat- 
ment. The  <aliqua>  ratio  is  apt  rather  to  lead  to  identical 
metrical  treatment  (below,  pages  44  ff.).  In  the  revision  of 
his  edition  of  the  Mostellaria  (1907)  he  omits  all  reference  to 
the  matter. 

Professor  E.  T.  Merrill,  in  his  note  on  Catullus  62.28,  quae 
pepigere  viri,  pepigerunt  ante  parentes,  commented  on  "the 
change  of  form  of  the  repeated  tense  for  metrical  reasons  and 
for  variety",  comparing  fuerunt . .  .fuere  from  Lucilius  (110- 
iii  Marx),  flevere . . .  fleverunt  from  Vergil  Eel.  10.13-15, 
and  dididerunt,  recreaverunt,  rogarunt,  dederunt,  genuere  from 
Lucr.  6.2-5.  He  does  not  remark  that  his  examples  from  Lu- 
cilius and  Vergil  and  the  Catullus  passage  show  identical  metri- 
cal treatment  (in  Vergil  flevere  and  fleverunt  both  carry  the 
ictus  and  the  word-accent  on  the  penult :  there  is  a  double  cor- 
respondence between  lines  13  and  15,  since  ilium  etiam  occurs 
also  in  both  verses  at  the  beginning)  ;  indeed,  no  other  metri- 
cal treatment  is  possible  in  the  Lucilius  or  the  Catullus  pas- 
sage (see  below,  page  68).  Professor  Ellis,  too,  in  his  note  on 
the  Catullus  passage,  passes  over  matters  of  meter.  On  Mar- 
tial 1.36.1,  a  passage  involving  variant  treatment,  Friedlander 
(1886)  quotes  three  or  four  "andere  Beispiele  des  Wechsels 
der  Quantitat  (und  des  Accents)  bei  Wiederholung  desselben 
Wortes  in  demselben  oder  in  zwei  aufeinander  folgenden  Ver- 
sen". 

Professor  W.  A.  Merrill,  in  his  edition  of  Lucretius  (1907), 
in  notes  on  3.145  and  4.1259  cites  only  examples  involving 
variant  metrical  treatment. 

Professor  Charles  Knapp,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  edition 


4  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

of  the  Aeneid  (1901),  §  263  (p.  83),  writes:  "In  cases  where 
a  word  or  varying  inflectional  forms  of  a  word  are  used  twice 
or  more  in  the  same  verse  or  in  adjacent  verses,  the  tendency 
among  Latin  poets  seems  to  be  to  give  such  words  and  forms 
different  metrical  treatment,  unless  some  special  effect  of 
emphasis,  exultation,  pathos,  or  the  like  is  to  be  gained 
through  repetition  with  the  same  metrical  value.  Sometimes 
both  methods  are  combined".  He  quotes  examples  from  the 
Aeneid,  and  comments  briefly  upon  the  effects  obtained  through 
repetition.  Apparently,  he  writes  with  some  hesitation,  as  if 
not  absolutely  sure  of  the  rule  he  lays  down.  Later,  in  The 
American  Journal  of  Philology,  27.81,  he  expressed  the  hope 
that  some  day  he  would  be  able  to  work  the  matter  out  in 
detail. 

These  citations,  and  others  like  them  that  might  be  gathered 
together,  show  that  the  metrical  treatment  of  repeated  words 
has  received  some  attention  at  the  hands  of  English  and  Ameri- 
can editors,  but  almost  wholly  in  the  shape  of  isolated  notes, 
which  confine  themselves  to  the  particular  phenomenon  repre- 
sented in  the  verse  on  which  the  note  is  made5.  It  may  be 
remarked,  however,  that  one  can  hardly  expect  an  editor  to 
follow  out  in  full  every  one  of  the  multitudinous  lines  of  in- 
quiry suggested  by  the  text  before  him.  It  is  clear,  in  any 
event,  that  there  is  room  for  the  investigation  which  the  author 
of  the  present  paper  has  set  before  himself. 

Manifestly,  to  print  an  absolutely  exhaustive  collection  of 
repeated  words  from  all  the  Latin  poets  or  even  from  any 
considerable  number  of  Latin  poets  would  take  too  much  space. 
Nor  is  the  printing  of  such  exhaustive  collection  necessary.  I 
shall  therefore,  in  the  following  chapters,  deal  with  about  twen- 
ty of  the  more  important  Latin  poets  covering  the  period  ex- 
tending from  Plautus  through  Prudentius ;  the  examples  printed 
will  be  selected  from  the  full  collection  which  I  have  made 
for  each  author  considered  in  this  paper. 

8 1  have  not  examined  German  editions  as  systematically  as  I  have 
the  English  and  American.  I  recall,  however,  from  them  few  comments 
on  our  theme.  Similarly,  our  manuals  of  Latin  literature  give  little 
or  no  heed  to  repetition. 


CHAPTER  II. 
REPETITION  IN  LATIN  POETRY. 

In  this  chapter  I  purpose  to  take  up  twenty-two  represen- 
tative Latin  poets,  and  to  indicate  the  nature,  the  extent,  and 
the  relative  effectiveness  of  repetition  in  their  works.  In  the 
next  chapter  I  hope  to  prove  that  the  metrical  treatment  of 
repeated  words  is  practically  the  same  in  all  these  poets;  for 
the  present  that  phrase  of  the  subject  will  receive  no  con- 
sideration. 

Some  general  remarks,  in  no  way  exhaustive,  may  first  be 
made.  The  use  of  repetition  in  prose  to  secure  emphasis,  in- 
tensity and  distinctness  of  impression  has  been  discussed  by 
Professor  Abbott  in  the  paper  referred  to  above  (page  i), 
and,  apparently  for  both  prose  and  verse,  by  Wolfflin,  in  a 
paper  entitled  Die  Gemination  im  Lateinischen  (note  3)1. 
Professor  Abbott  holds,  rightly  (page  86),  that  we  are  dealing 
here  with  phenomena  which  originated  in  every-day  speech, 
not  wUh  the  rhetoricians:  "the  rhetorician  merely  adopted  ef- 
fective forms  of  expression  which  he  found  in  common  use 
among  the  people".  "Repetition",  he  continues,  ..."secures 
clearness  and  conveys  the  impression  of  sincerity  and  earnest- 
ness. The  rhetorician,  the  orator,  and  the  poet  appreciate  this 
fact,  and  employ  it  sometimes  unconsciously,  but  often  con- 
sciously, as  a  rhetorical  device". 

Some  forms  of  conscious  employment  of  repetition  by  the 
poets,  for  reasons  other  than  the  simple  attainment  of  clear- 
ness, will  now  be  considered.  Often,  for  example,  the  emo- 
tional suggestions  of  a  passage  are  emphasized  by  repetition. 
Thus,  in  Aeneid  3.522-524  the  joy  of  the  Trojans  when  first 
they  see  the  promised  land  is  brought  out  by  the  triple  Italiam 
(compare  the  OdXaTra,  OaXarra.  of  the  ten  thousand  Greeks), 


1  For  other  modern  discussions  see  e.  g.  Wilkins  on  Cicero  De  Ora- 
tore  3.206-208;  Sandys  on  Cicero  Orator  135;  Volkmann,  Die  Rhetorik 
der  Griechen  und  R6mera  (in  Miiller's  Handbuch  III),  43-44. 


6  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

In  Catullus  3.3-4,  15-16, 

Passer  mortuus  est  meae  puellae, 
passer,  deliciae  meae  puellae, 

tarn  bellum  mihi  passerem  abstulistis. 

o  factum  male !     io  miselle  passer ! 

the  repetition  makes  the  reader  linger  over  the  pathos  of  the 
situation  described  by  the  poem.  Other  similar  examples  are 
Aeneid  6.878,882, 

Heu  pietas,  heu  prisca  fides,  invictaque  bello 


heu  miserande  puer,  siqua  fata  aspera  rumpas. 
1.222     fata  Lyci,  fortemque  Gyan,  fortemque  Cloanthum: 
Horace  Carm.  2.14.1-2 

Eheu !  fugaces,  Postume,  Postume, 
labuntur  anni. 

So,  again,  surprise  is  well  brought  out  by  repetition  in  Ter- 
ence Phorm.  510-511, 

PH.     Pamphilam  meam  vendidit.      AN.     Quid?  vendi- 

dit?     GE.     Ain?  vendidit? 
PH.     Vendidit... 

or  Aen.  1.421-422  (see  below,  page  66).  Again,  the  humor  of 
a  passage  may  be  emphasized  by  repetition,  as  in  Plautus  Most. 
455-457,  460-462.  In  Aeneid  4.305-330  the  passionate  emo- 
tions brought  forth  by  love  betrayed  are  well  set  out,  in  part, 
by  repetition,  for  instance,  through  the  net- work  of  repeated 
pronouns,  and  such  recurring  stressing  of  the  idea  as  we  see 
in  crudeli . . .  crudelis  (308,  311),  Troia  . . .  Troia  (312,  313), 
per  (314,  316)  and  propter  (320,  321). 

On  the  other  hand,  through  repetition  the  suggestion  of 
quiet,  of  repose  is  emphasized  in  such  passages  as  Vergil,  Bu- 
colics 10.42-45 

Hie  gelidi  fontes,  hie  mollia  prata,  Lycori, 
hie  nemus ;  hie  ipso  tecum  consumerer  aevo, 
or  Horace,  Carm.  2.16.1-8 

Otium  divos  rogat  in  patenti 
prensus  Aegaeo,  simul  atra  nubes 
condidit  lunam  neque  certa  fulgent 

sidera  nautis; 
otium  bello  furiosa  Thrace, 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  7 

otium  Medi  pharetra  decori, 
Grosphe,  non  gemmis  neque  purpura  ve- 
nale  neque  auro. 

Further  examples  of  these  and  like  or  differing  emotional 
values  enhanced  by  repetition  will  be  found  in  the  later  pages 
•of  this  chapter. 

How  is  emotional  effectiveness  gained  through  repetition? 
In  some  cases,  where  the  forms  of  the  repeated  word  occur 
in  sequence,  as  in  Horace's  Eheu,  fugaces  Postume,  Postume, 
labuntur  anni,  the  repetition  forces  or  at  least  invites  the  reader 
to  tarry  at  once  over  the  idea  which  the  writer  is  seeking  to 
suggest;  in  other  cases,  where  the  forms  of  the  repeated  word 
are  separated,  more  or  less  widely,  the  reader  or  hearer  is 
made  to  recur,  for  further  consideration,  to  the  idea  conveyed 
by  the  word.  The  repetition,  then,  does  not  per  se  express  the 
varying  emotions  referred  to  above,  but  by  making  the  mind 
of  reader  or  hearer  give  close  heed  to  the  passage,  either  by 
lingering  over  it  at  once,  or  by  recurring  to  it  once  or  oftener, 
helps  to  bring  out  in  clearer  relief  the  thought  inherent  in  the 
passage  as  a  whole.  Some  further  remarks  on  this  point  will 
be  found  here  and  there  below,  in  comments  on  divers  pas- 
sages. Mr.  Charlton  M.  Lewis  has  explained  in  similar  manner 
the  effectiveness  of  alliteration.  "Alliteration",  he  says,  "(like 
other  effects  in  tone-color)  makes  a  group  of  words  peculiarly 
prominent  and  effective,  and  intensifies  the  emotion  suggested 
by  their  sense,  whatever  the  sense  may  be"2.  All  this  explains 
how  repetition  makes  itself  felt  as  a  factor  in  the  full  expres- 
sion of  so  many  widely  different  emotions. 

In  various  rhetorical  figures  repetition  plays  a  part.  To  this 
subject  some  attention  was  given  by  Latin  writers3.  The 
Auctor  ad  Herennium  4.13.19  to  4.28.39  discusses  various  fig- 
ures some  at  least  of  which  involve  repetition:  see  especially 
4.13.19  (page  307  Marx);  4.14.21  (310);  4.21.29,  4.22.30-31 

(320-323) ;  4-25-35  (327) ;  4.28.38-39  (331-333). 

*  Lewis,  The  Principles  of  English  Verse,  137. 

8  It  had,  of  course,  been  considered  by  Greek  writers ;  see  the  works 
referred  to  by  Wilkins  and  Sandys,  especially  the  latter,  in  their  notes 
•on  Cicero  De  Oratore  3.206-208,  Orator  135. 


8  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

Cicero,  in  De  Oratore  3.206-208,  makes  Crassus  run  over 
the  chief  lumina  verborum,  figures  of  speech.  Crassus  does 
this  so  briefly,  however,  that  in  209  Cotta  comments  thus :  quae 
quidem  te,  Crasse,  video,  quod  nota  esse  nobis  putes,  sine 
definitionibus  et  sine  exemplis  effudisse4.  In  the  figures  named, 
and  in  fact  to  some  extent,  spite  of  Cotta's  comment,  defined, 
repetition  plays  a  prominent  part.  In  Orator  135  Cicero  re- 
turned to  the  subject,  speaking  more  briefly  than  he  had  in 
the  De  Oratore,  but  using,  in  some  respects,  clearer  language 
than  he  had  employed  in  the  earlier  work. 

Quintilian  labels  a  long  chapter  (9.3)  De  Figuris  Verborum; 
the  figures  treated  in  §  §  18-57  result  per  adiectionem,  i.  e.  in 
the  main,  through  repetition  in  divers  forms.  In  Baehrens, 
Poetae  Latini  Minores,  4.  pages  273-285,  there  is  a  collection 
of  verses  of  unknown  authorship,  which  describe  several  fig- 
ures involving  repetition.  Three  lines  are  given  to  each ;  there 
is  a  brief  definition,  followed  by  an  example. 

The  Auctor  ad  Herennium,  Cicero  and  Quintilian  were 
thinking,  of  course,  of  oratory  and  prose,  but  what  they  say 
applies  in  part  also  to  verse. 

I  have  not,  in  this  dissertation,  attempted  any  such  scientific 
and  exhaustive  study  of  the  rhetorical  tropes  which  depend 
for  their  effectiveness  on  repetition  as  Professor  Cook  desider- 
ates (see  above,  pages  1-2).  Indeed,  the  studies  resulting  in 
the  present  paper  are  a  necessary  preliminary  to  such  examin- 
ation; further,  in  that  examination  prose,  too,  must  be  con- 
sidered. At  some  later  day  I  hope  to  take  up  that  study  in  a 
thorough-going  fashion.  For  the  present  I  shall  merely  re- 
mark that  at  appropriate  points  below,  as  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  name  rhetorical  figures  involving  repetition,  I  shall 
define  them,  where  necessary,  as  clearly  as  possible,  with  ref- 
erences to  ancient  discussions  of  them,  so  far  as  these  dis- 
cussions are  known  to  me. 

In  Plautus  conversational  repetition  is  employed,  naturally, 
with  the  greatest  frequency,  to  secure  clearness  or  emphasis  or 
to  add  to  the  humor  of  a  passage.  For  examples  of  repetition 


*The  Auctor  ad  Herennium  and  Quintilian  give  examples. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  9 

to  add  to  the  humor  see  e.  g.  Capt.  255-256,  Most.  455-457, 
460-462,  832-838,  and  the  constant  iteration  of  faenus  in  Most. 
580  fT.,  especially  in  603-605  (in  605  Plautus  himself,  through 
Tranio's  words,  Faenus  illic,  faenus  hid,  calls  attention  to  the 
effectiveness  of  the  repetition  in  this  passage),  and  that  of 
aedis  in  Most.  638  ff. 

In  Mostellaria  364-375  will  be  seen  an  interesting  phenom- 
enon of  this  conversational  iteration  (common  especially  in 
rapid  dialogue),  the  interrogative  repetition,  by  one  actor,  of 
a  word  or  words  just  employed  by  another;  the  repetition  helps 
to  express  surprise  or  incredulity.  Other  instances  are  Most. 
595  TH.  Non  dat,  non  debet.  DA.  Non  debet?  io2,S-io2g 
SI.  ideo  aedificare  hie  velle  aiebat  in  tuis.  TH.  Hie  aedifi- 
care  volui?  The  reverse  form  of  iteration,  by  which  the 
words  of  a  question  are  repeated  by  another  character  in  de- 
clarative form,  conditioned  as  it  is  by  the  lack  of  a  single 
effective,  ever-ready  word  for  'yes',  is,  of  course,  common, 
and  needs  no  illustration.  Both  methods  are  occasionally  com- 
bined, as  e.  g.  in  Most.  973^974. 

In  another  variety  of  conversational  iteration,  a  simple  word 
used  by  the  first  character  is  repeated  by  the  second  in  a  dif- 
ferent, usually  in  an  intensive,  form;  frequently,  too,  there  is 
some  accompanying  word  likewise  suggestive  of  increasing 
intensity  (such  as  inquam  or  immo).  Examples  are  Most.  554 
TR.  Negat  scelestus?  TH.  Negitat,  inquam;  Captivi  289  HE. 
Quid  tu  ais?  tenaxne  pater  est  eius?  PH.  Immo  edepol 
pertinax. 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  Plautus  cares  little  or  nothing 
about  the  finer  effects  of  repetition  and  only  in  the  rarest  in- 
stances strives  to  attain  them5. 


8  Some  effective  instances  have  already  been  noted  (Most. 580-605, 
especially  603-605,  638-642).  An  extreme  form  of  repetition  common 
in  Plautus,  according  to  our  manuscripts,  is  the  repetition  of  a  thought 
(not  merely  a  word)  in  divers  forms,  especially  in  the  cantica.  This 
does  not,  however,  directly  concern  us.  Editors  have,  in  general,  re- 
garded it  as  inartistic,  and  have  deleted  many  verses  in  such  passages. 
I  sympathize,  however,  with  Professor  Abbott's  argument  in  his  Repeti- 
tion, etc.,  page  76,  note  I. 


io  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

Ennius,  called  "the  father  of  Roman  poetry",  may  also  with 
perfect  justice  be  said  to  be,  in  Latin  literature,  the  father  of 
artistic  repetition;  he  shows  considerable  skill  in  obtaining 
emphasis  and  various  rhetorical  effects  through  iteration.  First, 
we  may  compare  Annales  110-113  (sorrow  combined  with  re- 
ligious exaltation  is  expressed)  : 

Pectora  . .  .  tenet  desiderium,  simul  inter 
sese  sic  memorant  "O  Romule,  Romule  die, 
qualem  te  patriae  custodem  di  genuerunt ! 
O  pater,  O  genitor,  O  sanguen  dis  oriundum !" 
There  is  fine  anaphoraic  repetition6  in  Annales  91-92 

et  simul  ex  alto  longe  pulcherruma  praepes 
laeva  volavit  avis,  simul  aureus  exoritur  sol7. 
So  also  in  Scenica  260-261 

multi  suam  rem  bene  gessere  et  publicam  patria 

procul, 
multi    qui    domi    aetatem   agerent   propterea    sunt 

improbati. 
An  effective  epizeuxis8  occurs  in  Scenica  28 

6 1.  e.  repetition  of  the  same  word  or  words  at  the  beginning  of  two 
or  more  successive  clauses  or  sentences  or  verses.  It  is  not  named  in 
Cicero  De  Orat.3.2o6-2o8  or  Orat.  135,  but  it  is  defined  there  as  eiusdem 
verbi  crebra  ...  a  primo  repetitio  and  cum  .  .  .  ab  eodeni  verbo  ducitur 
saepius  oratio.  See  Wilkins  and  Sandys  ad  locc.  Compare  also  Cicero 
Part.  Orat.  21.  Auctor  ad  Her.  calls  it  merely  repetitio,  and  defines  it 
by  cum  continenter  ab  uno  atque  eodeni  verbo..  .  .  principia  sumuntur 
(three  fine  examples  are  given).  In  9.3.30  Quintilian  plainly  has 
anaphora  in  mind,  though  he  does  not  use  that  name ;  he  defines  the 
figure  merely  as  one  of  those  attained  per  adiectionem  (28).  See  R. 
Volkmann,  Die  Rhetorik  der  Greichen  und  Romer  *,  398  ,  Volkmann  3  , 
44. 

T  Strictly  speaking,  this  is  not  a  perfect  anaphora,  since  the  first 
clause  is  opened  by  et.  But  the  et  is  obviously  used  for  metrical 
reasons,  simul  receives  (necessarily)  the  same  metrical  treatment  in 
both  lines. 

8 1.  e.  the  repetition  of  a  word  twice  in  the  same  clause  or  phrase, 
without  change  of  form,  and  with  no  intervening  words.  Cicero  De 
Orat.  3.206  speaks  merely  of  geminatio  verborum,  i.e.  he  uses  the  generic 
term,  not  the  name  of  the  species. In  Orat.  135  he  says  we  have</ww£w 
orationis^>cum  . . .  duplicantur  iteranturque  verba  . . .  aut  adiungitur 
idem  iteratum  aut  idem  ad  extremum  refertur.  Here  duplicantur  seems 
to  indicate  geminatio  in  general,  adiungitur  (interpreted  in  the  light  of 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  u 

. .  .  Incede,  incede,  adsunt,  me  expetunt. 

Ennius  is  fond  of  piling  up  repeated  words  in  one  line.    Some- 
times the  effect  is  bad,  as  in  Saturae  59-62  (with  the  prolonged 
play  on  frustror  and  frustra  esse).     Two  instances,  however, 
which  are  productive  of  pleasant  effects  are  Scenica  234-236 
Otio  qui  nescit  uti 

plus  negoti  habet  quam  cum  est  negotium  in  negotio, 

Nam  cui  quod  agat  institutumst  non  ullo  negotio 

id  agit,  etc. 
and  Scenica  240 

imus  hue,  hinc  illuc,  cum  illuc  ventum  est,  ire  illuc 

lubet9. 

Effective,  too,  is  Scenica  298  Stultus  est  qui  cupida  mente 
cupienter  cupit,  'He  is  a  fool  who,  desiring  things  with  mind 
desirous,  desires  them  desirously'. 

Terence  exhibits  the  same  characteristics  as  Plautus,  but  in 
a  less  degree.  There  is,  it  goes  without  saying,  conversational 
repetition,  in  all  the  forms  seen  in  Plautus,  save  perhaps  the 
last  mentioned  above,  pages  8-9.  To  realize  the  humorous 
effects  Terence  was  able  to  gain  through  repetition,  we  need 
only  compare  Heaut.  975-977,  Phormio  373-374,  950-951, 
Adelphoe  933-935,  Andria  184,  etc. 

Terence  is  much  more  sensible  of  the  finer  effects  obtainable 
through  repetition  than  is  Plautus.  Thus  we  have  striking 
anaphora  and  antistrophe10  in  Andria  784  CH.  Audivi  iam 

the  following  words)  some  species  of  geminatio,  as  epizeuxis.  See 
Wilkins  and  Sandys  ad  locc.  (Wilkins  on  adiunctio,  ad  fin.,  page  119  A). 
Volkmann  3,  44,  calls  this  figure  dwShrXaxm,  ira\\i\oyla,  conduplicatio, 
iteratlo. 

9  For  other  examples  of  effective  repetition  in  Ennius,  see  Annales 
1-2,    117,    177,   194,  287-289,  334-336,  493;   Scenica  7-9,   56-62,   201-202, 
228-229,  270-272,  322-323. 

10  I.e.  the  repetition  of  the  same  word  at  the  end  of  two  or  more 
clauses,  sentences,  or  verses.     In   Cic.De  Orat.  206  it  is  a  species  of 
geminatio,  defined  within  the  following  words :   eiusdem  verbi  crebra 
turn  a  primo  repetitio,  turn  in  extremum  conversio;  cf.  Orat.  135  oratio 
...  in  idem  conicitur;  Auct.  ad  Her.  4.13.19  Conversio  est,  per  quam  non, 
ut  ante,  primum  repetimus  verbum,  sed  ad  postremum  continenter  re- 
vertimur     . .  .  ;  Quint.9.3-3O  et  ab  iisdem  verbis  plura  acriter  et  instanter 
incipiunt . . .  et   in    iisdem    desinunt . . .  Volkmann3,   44,   calls    this   figure 
conversio,  and  says  it  is  rarer  than  anaphora. 


12  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

omnia.  DA.  Anne  haec  tu  omnia?  A  fine  effect  is  gained  by 
the  epizeuxis  in  Adelphoe  687:  lam  id  peccatum  primum 
magnum,  magnum,  at  humanum  tamen11.  Phormio  710,  841, 
and  919-920  may  be  noted  in  this  connection. 

The  respective  attitudes,  then,  of  Plautus  and  Terence  to- 
ward repetition  and  their  treatment  of  it  follow  exactly  the 
general  lines  of  distinction  usually  drawn  between  the  two 
poets.  Plautus  is  exuberant,  often  careless  and  tautological,  in 
his  repetition ;  Terence  is  always  artistic  and  restrained. 

Lucilius  employs  iteration  with  great  frequency,  and,  often, 
with  considerable  success.  In  some  passages,  as  in  iio-m,  re- 
peated words  are  piled  up  (much  as  in  certain  passages  of 
Ennius)12 

Verum  haec  ludus  ibi  susque  omnia  deque  fuerunt, 
susque    et    deque     fuere,    inquam,    omnia    ludus 

iocusque. 

Indeed,  this  tendency  is,  for  good  or  for  bad,  the  most  charac- 
teristic feature  of  Lucilian  repetition.    Other  examples  are 
184-185     Ut  per(i)isse  velis,  quern  visere  nolueris,  cum 

debueris.    Hoc  'nolueris'  et  'debueris'  te  . . . 
878     magno,  non  magna  mercede,  magno  quod  conduxeris 
1284-1286  Quis  hunc  currere  ecum  nos  atque  equitare  videmus, 
his  equitat  curritque.     Oculis  equitare  videmus: 
ergo  oculis  equitat. 

Verses  839-840  contain  an  antistrophe  that  is  worthy  of  notice : 
vecte  atque  ancipiti  ferro  effringam  cardines. 
Nemo  hos  ancipites  ferro  effringat  cardines. 
Some  of  the  repetition  in  Lucilius  is,  in  effect,  a  school- 
master's repetition  (didactic  repetition),  to  score  a  philological 
point:  see  e.  g.  examples  in  such  verses  as  are  discussed  by 
Professor  R.  G.  Kent,  in  his  paper,  Lucilius  on  El  and  I,  The 
American  Journal  of  Philology,  32.273  ff.     It  will  suffice  to 
quote  one  such  passage,  356-361,  in  extenso: 

Fervere,  ne  longum.    Vero :  hoc  lectoribus  tradam. 
Fervit  aqua  et  fervet,  fervit  nunc,  fervet  ad  annum, 
'meille'  hominum,  duo  'meilia',  item  hue  e  utroque 
opus  'meiles', 

11  Compare  also,   for  interesting  repetition,  Heaut.322-324,  348,  924- 
925,  975-977 ;  Phormio  206-208,  286-287,  373-374,  397-398,  496,  etc. 
"  Cf.  p.  ii. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  13 

'meilitiam'.      Tenues    i:    'pilam'    in    qua    lusimus, 

'pilum' 

quo  piso,  tenues.    Si  plura  haec  feceris  pila 
quae  iacimus,  addes  e  'peila'  ut  plenius  fiat. 
Compare  also  362-366,  369-370™.     In  729-730,  again,  we  ob- 
serve a  notable  polysyndeton14  (which  in  this  instance  produces 
also  anaphora)  : 

Cum  pacem  peto,   cum  placo,   cum  adeo  et  cum 

appello  'meam', 
cum  mei  me  adeunt  servuli,  non  'dominam'  ego  ap- 

pellem  meam. 

Two  citations  will  show  that  Lucilius  understood  thoroughly 
the  value  of  repetition  as  a  metrical  and  rhetorical  device. 
93-94  chaere,  inquam,  Tite,  lictores,  turma,  omnis  cho- 

rusque : 
"chaere,  Tite".  hinc  hostis  mi  Albucius,  hinc  inimi- 

cus. 

132  ostrea  nulla  fuit,  non  purpura,  nulla  peloris15. 
Varro  repeats  monosyllables  chiefly.  Two  varieties  of  this 
monosyllabic  iteration,  both  of  the  anaphoraic  type,  are  to  be 
noted.  In  the  first,  the  word  is  repeated  at  the  beginning  of 
successive  lines,  in  the  other  at  the  beginning  of  two  successive 
clauses  in  the  same  line.  Examples  are  Synephebus  V  (p.  221) 

Hie  narium  seplasiae, 
hie  ^SVTTVOVS  Neapolis. 

Est  Modus  Matulae  I  (p.  123) 

Vino  nihil  iucundius  quisquam  bibit. 

Hoc  aegritudinem  ad  medendam  invenerunt, 

hoc  hilaritatis  dulce  seminarium, 

hoc  continet  coagulum  convivia. 
Sexagessis  X  (p.  216) 

Sic  canis  fit  e  catello,  sic  e  tritico  spica. 
In   AN0PQIIOIIOAI2  II  (p.  103)  both  methods  are  combined: 

Non  fit  thesaurus,  non  auro  pectu'  solutum ; 

non  demunt  animis  curas  ac  relligiones 

Persarum  montes,  non  atria  divit:'  Crassi. 

13  Professor  Kent  (see  page  12)  discusses  fully  various  readings  and 
matters  of  punctuation  in  these  passages.    He  often  differs  from  Marx'. 
"Such  figures  as  polysyndeton  (see  e.g.  Quint.  9-3-5O-50  and  chias- 
mus need  no   definition. 
15  Cf.    also   9,    20-22,   27-30,    140-141,   218,    243-246,   485-489,    992-095, 

IOI5-IOI6,  IOI9-I02I,  I220-I22I,  1326-1333,  1334-1336. 


14  Repetition  hi  Latin  Poetry 

Varro  occasionally  repeats  longer  words,  e.  g.  in  Ammon  Me- 
treis  I 

Nos  barbari,  quod  innocentes  in  gabulum  suffigimus 
homines,  et  vos  non  barbari,  qui  noxios  absolvitis? 
In  barbari-barbari  we  have  identical  metrical  treatment16. 

In  Lucretius  the  most  characteristic,  indeed,  almost  the  only 
type  of  repetition  is  the  repetition  of  a  leading  word   from 
clause  to  clause,  usually  in  different  forms ;  the  purpose  of  such 
repetition  is  to  secure  the  clearness  so  essential  in  an  elaborate 
and  intricate  discussion17.    It  may  be  said,  however,  that  Lucre- 
tius is  occasionally  led  by  his  apparent  desire  for  perfect  clear- 
ness into  inartistic  and  even  careless  iteration18.     The  finest 
example  of  Lucretius's  characteristic  repetition  is  in  3.554-608; 
see  also  4.347-493,  6.132-214,  6.1255-1286.    These  passages  in- 
volve, respectively,  varying  forms  of  videre,  nubes  and  nubila, 
corpora19.    Lucretius  is  rarely  concerned  with  the  more  subtle 
effects  of  repetition.     One  striking  example,  however,  of  his 
employment  of  repetition  for  rhetorical  effect  is  seen  in  1.66-69 
primum  Graius  homo  mortalis  lollere  contra 
est  oculos  ausus  primusque  obsistere  contra, 
quern  neque  fama  deum  nee  fulmina  nee  minitanti 
murmure  compressit  caelum  . .  . 
The  repetition  primum-primusque-primus  (71)  and  the  itera- 


M  Cf .  also  Eumenides  XXVI,  XXVII,  XXXIX. 

17  To  some  extent  this  repetition  in  Lucretius  is  conditioned  by  the 
lack  of  a  sufficiently  extensive  philosophical  vocabulary:  see  Lucr.  i. 
136-139,  880-883,  925-929;  2.1022-1025;  3.258-261,  and  Miss  K.  C.  Reiley's 
dissertation,  Studies  in  the  Philosophical  Terminology  of  Lucretius  and 
Cicero,  3-7. — Though  Lucretius's  primary  purpose  in  his  repetition  is 
logical  rather  than  rhetorical,  in  its  better  and  more  effective  forms 
Lucretian  repetition  approaches  what  the  Auctor  ad  Herennium  4.14.20 
calls  traductio.    His  definition  runs  thus :  Traductio  est  quae  facit  uti, 
cum  idem  verbum  crebrius  ponatur,  non  modum  non  offendat  animum, 
sed  etiam  concinniorem  orationem  reddat.    In  Cicero  De  Oratore  3.167 
traductio  is  used  rather  of  metaphor:  see  Wilkins  ad  loc. 

18  Cf .  4.416-419.  I  am  glad  to  find  my  own  opinion  here  supported  by 
Duff,  A  Literary  History  of  Rome  (London,  1909),  298. 

19  Other  examples  are  4.1257-1262    (semina  . . .  seminibus  . . .  crassa  . . . 
liquidis  . . .  liquida    crassis)  ;    5.991-993     (viva  . . .  viva . . .  vivo}  ;    6.777, 
779,  78i,  789-790  (forms  of  multus}. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  15 

tion  in  neque  -  nee  -  nee  help  to  bring  out  the  poet's  pride  in  the 
facts  he  is  recording20. 

In  Catullus  we  find  at  least  three  types  of  repetition  which 
occur  so  frequently  that  we  are  justified  in  terming  them  char- 
acteristic.    They  are  anaphora,  antistrophe  and  refrain.     Ex- 
amples of  anaphora  are 
51  b.  13-16  Otium,  Catulle,  tibi  molestumst: 
otio  exsultas  nimiumque  gestis. 
Otium  et  reges  prius  et  beatas 

perdidit  urbes. 

63.21-25     Ubi  cymbalum  sonat  vox,  ubi  tympana  reboant, 
tibicen  ubi  canit  Phryx  curvo  grave  calamo, 
ubi  capita  Maenades  vi  iaciunt  ederigerae, 
ubi  sacra  sancta  acutis  ululatibus  agitant, 
ubi  suevit  ilia  divae  volitare  vapa  cohors  . . . 
In  64  turn  begins  verses  19,  20,  21,  and  gnate  is  the  first  word  in 
215-216.    95.1,5,6  is  interesting.     78  may  be  quoted  in  full: 

Callus  habet  fratres,  quorumst  lepidissima  coniunx 

alterius,  lepidus  filius  alterius. 
Callus  homost  bellus :  nam  dukes  iungit  amores, 

cum  puero  ut  bello  bella  puella  cubet. 
Callus  homost  stultus  nee  se  videt  esse  maritum, 

qui  patruus  patrui  monstret  adulterium. 

Here,  the  figure21  in  2,  the  partial  refrain  in  3  and  5,  and  the 
polyptoton22  in  6  are  worthy  of  note.     This  combining  of  fig- 

30  Since  the  above  was  written,  Professor  J.  S.  Reid's  note  on  this 
passage  in  Harvard  Studies  22.1-2  has  lent  fresh  interest  to  the  repeti- 
tion here  discussed ;  Professor  Reid  remarks  that  "the  false  claim  to 
have  been  the  first  or  the  only  man  to  have  performed  some  intellectual 
feat  is  common  in  ancient  literature"  (he  sees  such  a  false  claim  by 
Lucretius  himself  in  5.336-337  hanc  primus  cum  primis  ipse  repertus 
nunc  ego  sum  in  patrias  qui  possim  vertere  voces). 

For  other  instances  of  Lucretian  iteration  see  1.6-9,  23,  229-231, 
688-691;  2.54-59;  3.445-446;  4.861-864,  1018-1020;  5-332-333,  1186-1191; 
6.2-6,  299-300,  1276-1278. 

"  I.e.  the  repetition  of  the  same  word  or  words  at  the  beginning  and 
at  the  end  of  the  sentence  or  verse.  Quint  9.3.34  refers  to  this  figure, 
without  naming  it,  in  the  following  words :  Respondent  primis  et 
ultima :  Multi  et  graves  dolores  inventi  parentibus  et  propinquis  multi. 

"I.e.  the  repetition  of  a  word  in  different  case- forms,  in  the  same 
connection.  Compare  Cic.  De  Orat.3.2O7  Est  etiam . . .  quod  in  multis 
casibus  ponitur ;  Orat.i35  cum  eiusdem  nominis  casus  saepius  commu- 
tantur,  with  the  notes  of  Wilkins  and  Sandys ;  Auct.  ad  Her.  4.20.30 


16  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

ures  will  be  further  illustrated  later23.    For  antistrophe  we  may 
quote 

8.11-12,19  sed  obstinata  mente  perfer,  obdura. 
Vale  puella!  iam  Catullus  obdurat, 


At  tu,  Catulle,  destinatus  obdura. 
49.4-7     gratias  tibi  maximas  Catullus 
agit  pessimus  omnium  poeta, 
tanto  pessimus  omnium  poeta 
quanto  tu  optimus  omnium  patronus. 

Antistrophe  occurs  most  frequently  in  connection  with  ana- 
phora24, as  in  3.3-4 : 

Passer  mortuus  est  meae  puellae, 

passer,  deliciae  meae  puellae. 

In  5.7-10  we  have  anaphora  (in  dein  and  delude)  and  antistro- 
phe (in  mille,  7  and  9,  and  centum)  interwoven  in  a  most  inter- 
esting fashion.  So  also  in 

34.1-4     Dianae  sumus  in  fide 

puellae  et  pueri  integri ; 

Dianam  pueri  integri 

puellaeque  canamus. 
In  45-2i-24, 

Unam  Septimius  misellus  Acmen 

mavult  quam  Syrias  Britanniasque : 

uno  in  Septimio  fidelis  Acme 

facit  delicias  libidinesque, 

the  antistrophae  in  Acmen  -  Acme  and  -que  -  que  are  especially 
worthy  of  note.  In  62.42-44  and  53-55  there  are  interesting 
double  antistrophae  and  anaphorae. 

Some  effective  examples  of  anadiplosis25  are  to  be  found  in 


Tertium  genus  est,  quod  versatur  in  casuum  commutatione  aut  unius  aut 
plurium  nominum ;  Quint.9-3.36-37  Fit  casibus  modo  hoc  schema  ,  quod 
iroXtfTTTwroi'  vocant. 

23  See  below  on  this  page,  and  page  17. 

24  Volkmann8,  44,  calls  this  combination  symploce,  complexio.     Quin- 
tilian  describes  it  in  9.3.31 ;  see  also  Wilkins  on   Cic.  De  Orat.3.2o6 
(page  119  B,  bottom-i2o),  Sandys  on  Orator  135  (page  138  A). 

39 1.  e.  repetition  of  a  word  which  closes  a  clause,  sentence  or  line  at 
the  beginning  of  the  following  clause,  sentence  or  line.  See  Volkmann8, 
43-44  .  In  Quintilian  9.3.44  we  have  Prioris  sententiae  verbum  ac 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  17 

Catullus,  e.  g.  in 

61.8-9     flammeum  cape,  laetus  hue, 

hue  veni .  . . 
61.206-207  multa  milia  ludi. 

Ludite  ut  libet . . . 
64.26-27       Thessaliae  columen  Peleu,  cui  luppiter  ipse, 

ipse  suos  divom  genitor  concessit  amores. 
64.285-286  Confestim  Penios  adest,  viridantia  Tempe, 

Tempe,  quae  silvae  cingunt  super  impendentes. 
We  have  a  combination  of  anaphora  and  antimetabole26  in 
58.1-3  Caeli,  Lesbia  nostra,  Lesbia  ilia, 

ilia  Lesbia,  quam  Catullus  unam 

plus  quam  se  atque  suos  amavit  omnes. 
In  38.1-3  we  find  anaphora  and  gemination  (magis  magis)  : 

Malest,  Cornifici,  tuo  Catullo, 

malest  me  hercule,  et  est  laboriose, 

et  magis  magis  in  dies  et  horas. 

In  61.51,54,56,61,64,66,69,74,  tu  and  te  are  repeated  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  create  a  traductio. 

Catullus  employs  the  refrain  more  than  any  other  Latin  poet. 
Whole  lines  are  repeated,  as  in  16.1,14;  29.5,9;  52-lA>  61.4-5, 
39-40,  49-50,  59-60;  61.63-65,  68-70,  73-75  (two  whole  lines  and 
part  of  a  third)  ;  61.92,96,106,116,120-121,140-141,145-146,150- 
151,155-156,160-161,165-166,170-171,175-176,180-181,185-186; 
61.131,136 ;  62.5,10,19,25,31,33,38,48,58^66  564.327,333,337,342. 
347,352,356,361,365,37^375,378,381.     But  his  partial  refrains 
are  more  interesting  than  the  cases  in  which  a  whole  line  or 
more  constitutes  the  repetend.    Examples  are 
56.1-4          O  rem  ridiculam,  Cato,  et  iocosam 

dignamque  auribus  et  tuo  cachinno. 

Ride,  quidquid  amas,  Cato,  Catullum: 

res  est  ridicula  et  nimis  iocosa. 
62.20,26       Hespere,  qui  caelo  fertur  crudelior  ignis? 

Hespere,  qui  caelo  lucet  iocundior  ignis? 

sequentis  primum  frequenter  est  idem,  quo  quidem  schemate  utuntur 
poetae   saepius : 

Pierldes,  vos  haec  facietis  maxima  Gallo, 

Gallo . . . 

Sed  ne  oratores  quidem  raro :  Hie  tamen  vivit.     Vivitne?  Immo  vero 
in  Senatum  venit. 
**  I.  e.  repetition  in  which  words  or  ideas  appear  in  inverse  order. 


*8  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

Verse  32  contains  just  an  echo : 

Hesperus  e  nobis,  aequales,  abstulit  unam. 
Note  also  6245,56 

sic  virgo,  dum  intacta  manet,  dum  cara  suis  est ; 

sic  virgo,  dum  intacta  manet,  dum  inculta  senescit27. 
In  68,  verses  92-93  echo  20-21,  while  22-24  are  repeated 
without  change  in  94-96.    Two  short  poems  containing  partial 
refrains  are  82  and  9228. 

Vergil  employs  repetition  with  greater  frequency  and  with 
more  signal  success  than  any  other  Latin  poet,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  Horace  and  Martial.  In  Aeneid  6  there  are  about 
500  examples  of  repeated  words,  and  in  the  Bucolics  approxi- 
mately 650  (in  my  collections  some  instances  where  the  repetend 
is  et  or  -que  have  been  disregarded).  It  would  be  easy,  there- 
fore, to  devote  a  long  chapter  to  Vergil  alone.  There  is  no  one 
type  which  may  be  called  characteristic,  for  he  employs  all 
types  with  great  freedom  and  with  equal  success.  When  we 
come  to  study  in  Chapter  III  the  metrical  treatment  of  repeated 
words,  we  shall  find  in  Vergil  the  most  orderly  and  consistent 
working  out  of  the  principles  to  be  laid  down  in  that  chapter. 
Here  let  us  note,  first,  some  rhetorical  effects  which  the  poet 
obtains  through  iteration29.  In  Aeneid  6.45-46  we  find  a 
striking  example  of  repetition  expressing  powerful  excitement : 

ventum  erat  ad  limen,  cum  virgo  "Poscere  fata 

tempus"  ait;  "deus,  ecce,  deus!" 

In  51-53,  insistence  upon  immediate  action  is  finely  hit  off  by 
repetition : 

. . .  "Cessas  in  vota  precesque, 

Tros"  ait  "Aenea?  Cessas?  Neque  enim  ante  dehis- 
cent 

attonitae  magna  ora  domus"  . .  . 


27  The  repetition  is  all  the  more  effective  if  this  passage  is  intepreted 
in  the  light  of  Professor  Knapp's  paper  in  The  Classical  Review  10. 
356-368. 

28  Cf.  also,  for  effective  repetition,  3.15-17;  4.22;  8.15-18;  9.3-5;  17.22; 
36.1;  42,  11-12;  43.1-4;  61.116-118,  128-140,  210-211;  62.28,  68-74;  63.12- 
13,  50,  61-73,  91;  64.195,  256-260,  334-336;  67.10-14;  68.99;  87;  94;  100 ; 
102;    110.4,   5;   etc. 

29  See  also  above,  p.  6. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  19 

To  3.521-524  reference  has  already  been  made  (see  above,  p.  2). 
The  rush  of  523  is  helped  by  the  elision  of  the  last  syllable  of 
the  first  word.  The  effect  of  haste  is  again  finely  obtained 
through  repetition  combined  with  elision  in  3.639-640 

Sed  fugite,  o  miseri,  fugite  atque  ab  litore  funem 

rumpite. 

In  3.436-439  the  effect  of  awe  is  greatly  enhanced  by  the  repeti- 
tion of  iterumque  and  of  the  name  of  the  goddess,  and  by  the 
identical  metrical  treatment : 

praedicam,  et  repetens  iterumque  iterumque  monebo : 

lunonis  magnae  primum  prece  numen  adora ; 

lunonis  cane  vota  libens,  dominamque  potentem 

supplicibus  supera  donis  . . . 

The  dread  solemnity  of  an  oracular  response  is  finely  voiced  by 
the  repetition  in  2.116-119: 

"Sanguine  placastis  ventos  et  virgine  caesa, 

cum  primum  Iliacas,  Danai,  venistis  ad  oras; 

sanguine  quaerendi  reditus,  animaque  litandum 

Argolica"30. 

There  is  occasionally  a  piling  up  of  repeated  words  which  re- 
minds one  of  Ennius  or  Lucretius31,  for  example,  in  Bucolics 
7.62-64 

formonsae  myrtus  Veneri,  sua  laurea  Phoebo; 

Phyllis  amat  corylos;  illas  dum  Phyllis  amabit, 

nee  myrtus  vincet  corylos,  nee  laurea  Phoebi. 
In  the  Bucolics  the  natural  charm  of  subject  matter  and  style 
is  enhanced  by  the  use  of  the  refrain32.    This  may  be  complete 

80  For  other  effective  examples  of  repetition  in  the  Aeneid  see  e.  g. 
1.47-48,  222,  421-422,  553-554,  709,  750-752;  2.28-30,  108-110,  143-144, 
150-151,  189-192,  218,  241-243,  299,  306,  318-322,  483-484,  560-562,  571, 
581,  618,  733,  77o;  3-80,  119,  185-186,  193,  247-248,  253-254,  265,  435-438, 
623-626;  4-78-79,  83,  138-139,  169,  173-174,  182-183,  312-313,  413,  435-438, 
603,  628,  657;  5-73-78,  80,  116-118,  136-137,  154-158,  186-187,  218-219,  252- 
254,  320-324;  6.51-52,  69-70,  86,  258,  261,  277-278,  289-294,  372,  495-500, 
614-615,  651-655,  787-789,  899-901. 

31  See  pp.   11-12   (and  page  n,  note  9). 

33  Sometimes  the  partial  refrain  is  due  to  the  amoebean  character  of 
the  verse  (or  at  least  fits  in  well  with  that  amoebean  character),  as  in 
3.43,  47,  104,  1 06.  In  6.47,  52  the  pathos  that  marks  the  passage  as  a 
whole  is  intensified  by  the  repetition.  In  yet  other  places,  and  espe- 
cially in  Eclogue  8,  the  recurrent  refrain  helps  to  break  the  thought  up 
into  small  groups  of  lines  easily  apprehended,  and  to  give  the  singer 


2O  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

or  partial.    The  complete  refrain  usually  occurs  several  times, 
whereas  the  partial  refrain  is  found,  in  most  cases,  only  twice. 
Examples  of  a  partial  refrain  are 
3.104,106     Die  quibus  in  terris — et  eris  mihi  magnus  Apollo — 

Die  quibus  in  terris  inscripti  nomina  regum . .  . 
4.60,62     Incipe,  parve  puer,  risu  cognoscere  matrem, 

Incipe,  parve  puer :  cui  non  risere  parentes  .  . . 
6.47,52     A  virgo  infelix,  quae  te  dementia  cepit! 

A  virgo  infelix,  tu  nunc  in  montibus  erras. 

In  8.47-50  we  have  a  partial  refrain,  crudelis  tu  quoque,  mater, 

along  with  a  fine  antimetabole33 : 

Saevus  Amor  docuit  natorum  sanguine  matrem 
commaculare  manus ;  crudelis  tu  quoque,  mater : 
crudelis  mater  magis  an  puer  improbus  ille? 
improbus  ille  puer ;  crudelis  tu  quoque,  mater34. 

For  an  oft-repeated  full  refrain  we  may  note  8.21,25,29,31,36. 
42,46,51,57 

Incipe  Maenalios  mecum,  mea  tibia,  versus, 
and  8.68,72,76,79,84,90,94,100,104 

Ducite  ab  urbe  domum,  mea  carmina,  ducite  Daph- 
nim. 

There  is  another  type  of  repetition  which  is  characteristic  of 
the  Bucolics35,  the  treatment  of  proper  names.  One  may,  to 
be  sure,  find  proper  names  at  almost  any  position  in  the  verse, 
but  Vergil  is  fond  of  making  them  close  the  verse  (antistro- 
phe)36. 

5.57,61     sub  pedibusque  videt  nubes  et  sidera  Daphnis. 

ulla  dolum  meditantur :  amat  bonus  otia  Daphnis. 

pause,  as  it  were,  for  breath  or  thought;  the  refrain  thus  plays  in  a 
way  the  role  played  in  an  actual  contest  of  song  by  flourishes  on  the 
pipe  between  stanzas  or  groups  of  verses. 

33  See  page  17,  note  26. 

"Line  50  is  omitted  in  the  Teubner  text. 

85  This  type  is  rare  in  the  Aeneid.  But  the  repetition,  of  names  is,  in 
general,  far  less  marked  in  the  Aeneid  than  in  the  Bucolics. 

38  See  page   n,  note   10. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  21 

8.102,104,108 

transque  caput  iace,  nee  respexeris  :  his  ego  Daphnim 

Ducite  ab  urbe  domum,  mea  carmina,  ducite  Daph- 
nim. 

Parcite,  ab  urbe  venit,  iam  parcite,  carmina,  Daph- 

nis. 
9.10,16,18    omnia  carminibus  vestrum  servasse  Menalcan. 

nee  tuus  hie  Moeris,  nee  viveret  ipse  Menalcas. 
paene  simul  tecum  solatia  rapta,  Menalca? 
10.37-38,41  Certe,  sive  mihi  Phyllis,  sive  esset  Amyntas, 

seu  quicumque  furor — quid  turn,  si  fuscus  Amyntas  ? 

serta  mihi  Phyllis  legeret,  cantaret  Amyntas. 
In  8.1,5  we  find  a  combination  of  methods  (proper  names  at  the 
beginning,  at  the  end  and  within  the  verses)  : 

Pastorum  Musam  Damonis  et  Alphesiboei — 

Damonis  Musam  dicemus  et  Alphesiboei. 

Occasionally  a  vocative  of  some  word  other  than  a  proper  name 
is  found  at  the  end  of  the  verse,  as  in 

1.74,77     Ite  meae,  felix  quondam  pecus,  ite  capellae! 

carmina  nulla  canam ;  non,  me  pascente,  capellae  .  .  . 
Vergil  sometimes  treats  proper  names  in  Homeric  fashion37,  as 
in 

6.20-21     addit  se  sociam,  timidisque  supervenit  Aegle, — 

Aegle,  Naiadum  pulcherrima, — iamque  videnti, . . . 
An  interesting  traductio38  is  found  in  8.67  ff.     The  word  re- 
peated is  carmina  (once  carminibus).  carmina  occurs  also  in 


8T  Homer  frequently  repeats  a  proper  name  in  the  same  sentence,  at 
the  beginning  of  a  new  verse.  Compare  e.  g.  Iliad  2.671-673,  870-871, 
6.395-396,  etc.  In  some  of  these  cases  (e.  g.  6.395-396)  we  have  an  ana- 
diplosis  (page  16,  note  25),  as  in  Bucolics  6.20-21  above. 

88  See  above,  page  14,  note  17. 

Tor  other  instances  of  repetition  in  Vergil  compare  Bucolics  i-3-4r 
27-32,  75-78;  2.8-9,  16,  31-33,  35-39,  56-58,  62-64,  68-71;  3.1-4,  19-23, 
50-53,  59-62,  74-79,  84-90;  4.1-3,  24-25,  50-52,  55-59;  5.16-17,  20-30,  41, 
51-52,  62-64;  6.5-12,  25,  29-30,  43-44,  55-56,  60-62;  7.2-4,  18-19,  65-70; 


22  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

The  statements  made  concerning  the  variety  and  effectiveness 
of  Vergil's  repetition  are  true  of  Horace  also,  with  only  one 
subtraction.  He  repeats  with  much  greater  frequency  and  much 
better  success  in  his  Odes  and  Epodes  than  in  the  Sermones 
and  the  Epistulae.  This  is  quite  natural.  Horace  declares  in 
Sermones  1.4.42  that  he  is  writing  sermoni  propiora.  In  Epp. 
2.1.250-251  he  calls  his  Epistles  Sermones ...  repentis  per 
humum*0.  Though  one  allows  here  for  a  certain  amount  of 
make-believe,  there  is  less  poetic  matter  in  the  Sermones  and 
the  Epistles  than  in  the  Odes41. 

Of  all  the  forms  of  repetition,  Horace  probably  employs  ana- 
phora with  greatest  frequency  and  most  conspicuous  success.  He 
frequently  connects  stanzas  or  sentences  by  the  repetition  of  an 
emphatic  word,  and  thus  avoids  mechanical  connection  by  such 
words  as  et,  nam,  enim,  etc.    Good  examples  are  Carm.  1.2.4-5 
terruit  urbem, 
terruit  gentis  . . . 
1.2.21-24     Audiet  civis  facuisse  ferrum 

quo  graves  Persae  melius  perirent, 
audiet  pugnas  vitio  parentum 

rara  iuventus. 

2.3.17-19  Cedes  coemptis  saltibus,  et  dome 
villaque  flavus  quam  Tiberis  lavit, 
cedes42 .  , 


8.8-13,  23,  38-41,  44-45,   55-56,  63,  77-78,  81-85,  93-94;   9-5-n,  23-24, 
26-30,  47-48,  64-65;  10.2-10,  13-17,  18-21,  28-36,  53-54,  75-76. 

40  The  close  kinship  of  the  Sermones  and  the  Epistulae  of  Horace 
has  often  been  noted.    One  of  the  theses  which  George  Bancroft  under- 
took to  defend  when,  in  1820,  he  presented  himself  in  Germany  for  his 
Doctor's  degree  was  this :  Epistolae  Horatii  forma  non  re  differunt  ab 
eius  Satyris :  see  The  Classical  Weekly  2.30-31.     Compare  also   Pro- 
fessor Hendrickson's  paper,   Are  the  Letters   of   Horace   Satires?  in 
The  American  Journal  of  Philology,   18.312-324. 

41  The  poetic  element  actually  in  Horace's  Sermones  has  been  noted 
by  L.   Miiller  in  his  edition  of  the   Sermones,  p.  xiii,  and  has  been 
carefully  discussed  in  a  dissertation  by  Phillip  Howard  Edwards,  The 
Poetic   Element  in  the   Satires   and   Epistles   of   Horace    (Baltimore, 
1905).     But  Mr.  Edwards  nowhere,  so  far  as  I  have  noted,  comments 
on   repetition. 

"Compare  also  1.35-5-6,  9,  17.  21    (repetition  of  te)  ;  2.4.3-5   (movit 
, . .  movit) . 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  23 

Sermones  1.10.71-73 

saepe  caput  scaberet,  vivos  et  roderet  ungues. 

Saepe  stilum  vertas,  iterum  quae  digna  legi  sint 

scripturus  .  . . 
Ars  Poetica  175-176 

Multa  ferunt  anni  venientes  commoda  secum, 

multa  recedentes  adimunt .  .  . 

Horace  is  fond  of  anadiplosis43  also.     Examples  are. 
jCarm.  3.16.14-16 

subruit  aemulos 

reges  muneribus;  munera  navium 

saevos  inlaqueant  duces. 

Epod.  17.7  citumque  retro  solve,  solve  turbinem. 
Serm.  1.4.48  differt  sermoni,  sermo  merus  . . . 

We  may  observe  now  a  few  of  the  rhetorical  effects  Horace 
obtains  through  repetition,  noting  first  the  deep  pathos  of 
Carm.  2.14.1-2** 

Eheu!  fugaces,  Postume,  Postume, 

labuntur  anni . .  . 

In  1.13.1-3  the  lover's  jealousy  is  well  depicted  by  the  repeated 
Telephus.  To  his  excited  imagination,  Telephus  is  the  one 
word  ever  on  Lydia's  lips;  the  position  of  Telephi  in  1-2 
(antistrophe)  adds  notably  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  itera- 
tion: 

Cum  tu,  Lydia,  Telephi 

cervicem  roseam,  cerea  Telephi 

laudas  bracchia  . . . 

To  the  expression  of  strong  resolution  and  earnestness  the 
repetition  helps  in  Carm.  2.17.9-12 
non  ego  perfidum 

dixi  sacramentum;  ibimus,  ibimus, 

utcumque  praecedes,  supremum 
carpere  iter  comites  parati. 

Fine  examples  of  eager  appeal  expressed  by  repetition  are 
Carm.  2.19.7-8 

euhoe,  parce  Liber, 

parce,  gravi  metuende  thyrso! 
Carm.  4.1.1-2  Intermissa,  Venus,  diu 

rursus  bella  moves?  Parce,  precor,  precor. 

43  See  above,  page  16,  note  25. 

44  See  Page  ad  loc. 


24  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

In  Carm.  3.3.18-20, 

Ilion,  Ilion 
fatalis  incestusque  iudex 

et  mulier  peregrina  vertit, 

solemnity   and   intense   emotion  are   well   emphasized   by   the 
repetition  of  Ilion. 

Another  remarkable   fact  in  connection  with   repetition  in 
Horace  is  that  in  the  Epodes  epizeuxis  is  found  far  more  fre- 
quently than  any  other  type   of  iteration;   it  is   found  very 
rarely  in  the  Odes,  the  Sermones  and  the  Epistles. 
Epod.  4.20  hoc,  hoc  tribune  militum  ? 

5.53,54    nunc,  nunc  adeste,  nunc  in  hostilis  domos 

iram  atque  numen  vertite. 
6.11-12     Cave,  cave:  namque  in  malos  asperrimus 

parata  tollo  cornua. 
7.1  Qu°,  quo  scelesti  ruitis?45 . . . 

The  nearest  approach  to  a  refrain  in  Horace  is  Serm. 
1.6.45-46 

Nunc  ad  me  redeo  libertino  patre  natum 
quern  rodunt  omnes  libertino  patre  natum46. 
Here  Horace  is  imitating  the  iteration  by  others  of  reflections 
on  his  humble  origin. 

Tibullus  repeats  with  much  less  frequency  than  Catullus,  and 
confines  his  repetition,  with  rare  exceptions,  to  anaphora.  The 
exceptions  are  most  frequently  in  the  case  of  monosyllables, 
such  as  nee,  et,  neu,  monosyllabic  pronouns,  etc.  Examples 
involving  anaphora  are 

1.1.61-63      Flebis  et  arsuro  positum  me,  Delia,  lecto, 
tristibus  et  lacrimis  oscula  mixta  dabis. 
Flebis : 
1.2.7-9         lanua  difficilis  domini,  te  verberet  imber, 

te  lovis  imperio  fulmina  missa  petant. 
lanua,  iam  pateas  uni  mihi,  victa  querellis  . . . 

"Other  examples  are  14.6-7:  17.1;  Carm.  4.13.17-18;  Epp.  1.1.53-54. 

"  Other  interesting  examples  of  repetition  in  general  from  Horace^ 
are  Carm.  1.3.28-29,  5-9-12,  8.5-8,  12.51-52,  15.9-10,  19-5-7,  32.11,  35-15: 
2.13.18,  16.1-8,  33-36,  20.5-6:  3.5.18-21:  4.1.29-32,  2.13-16,  49-50,  4.70, 
I3-I-3,  9-12;  Epod. 2.68,  5.53,  17.2-4,  40;  Serm.  1.1.16-18,  3.7-13,  121,  7.23- 
24,  10.2:  2.6.60;  Epp.  1.1.24-25,  93-96:  2.1.46,  2.37-40;  Ars.  Poet.  37,  269,. 
307-308,  etc. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  25 

Further,  in  the  case  of  initial  repetition,  the  repeated  words, 
in  the  majority  of  cases,  are  found  in  alternate  lines47.  Ana- 
phora in  succeeding  lines  does,  however,  occur  at  times,  as  in 
4.2.11-12  Urit,  seu  Tyria  voluit  procedere  palla, 

urit  seu  nivea  Candida  veste  venit. 
In  2.6.20-21,  25-27  we  have  both  methods  very  near  each  other : 

spes  fovet  et  fore  eras  semper  ait  melius. 
Spes  alit  agricolas,  Spes  sulcis  credit  aratis48 

Spes  etiam  valida  solatur  compede  vinctum 

(crura  sonant  ferro,  sed  canit  inter  opus)  : 
Spes    facilem   Nemesim   spondet   mihi,   sed   negat 

ilia49. 

Propertius  exhibits  the  characteristic  repetition  found  in 
Tibullus;  his  repetitions  almost  all  take  the  form  of  anaphora. 
He  probably  repeats  less  than  Tibullus,  especially  in  Books  4 
and  5,  but  he  employs  a  somewhat  greater  variety  of  forms 
than  we  found  in  Tibullus.  Instances  of  anaphoraic  iteration 
are  1.3.1-3;  3-6-3-8;  4.14.13-15;  5.8.68-70. 

In  3.20.41-44  Propertius  repeats  vidistis  at  the  beginning  of 
four  successive  lines,  of  course  for  special  emphasis.  Examples 
of  words  repeated  within  the  line,  for  different  effects,  are 
1.12.20         Cynthia  prima  fuit,  Cynthia  finis  erit. 
2.8.7-8         Omnia  vertuntur.    Certe  vertuntur  amores : 
vinceris  aut  vincis,  haec  in  amore  rotast50. 
Ovid,  too,  in  the  Amores,  the  Fasti,  the  Heroides,  and  the 
Tristia,  exhibits  the  fondness  for  anaphora  in  alternate  lines 
which  we  have  observed  in  Tibullus  and  Propertius.     Indeed, 
we   are   now   justified   in   reaching   the   conclusion    that   this 
particular  type  of  repetition  is  characteristic  of  elegiac  verse 
in  general51.   Examples  are  Fasti  1.67-69  dexter  ades. .  .dexter 


*TTo  the  instances  already  cited  may  be  added  1.2.83-85,  5.61,  63,  65: 
3.6.19-21. 

48  Here  is  there  is  anaphoraic  repetition  within  the  line. 

49  Cf.    also    1.21. 17-21,   35-36,   49-50,    7.39-41:    2.6.51-53:    3.5.9-I4:    4-1. 
19-20,  13.11-12,  etc. 

50  Cf.    also    1.3.21-23,    13.13-19;    2.1. 1-5,   3.17-22;    3.14-3-8,    23-24,    15.1, 
16.41,  2541-44;  4.1.63-64,  67-68,  13.48-50,  etc. 

51  It  must  be  said  that  in  Martial's  elegiac  verse  this  kind  of  repeti- 


26  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

ades;  Tristia  1.3.57-59 

Saepe  vale  dicto  rursus  sum  multa  locutus, 
et  quasi  discedens  oscula  summa  dedi. 

Saepe  eadem  mandata  dedi  meque  ipse  fefelli. 
I-3-5I~53      A!  quotiens  aliquo  dixi  properante  "Quid  urgues? 
vel  quo  festinas  ire,  vel  unde,  vide!" 

A!    quotiens    certain    me    sum    mentitus    habere 

horam . . . 
Amores  2.6.33-35 

Vivit  edax  vultu,  ducensque  per  aera  gyros 
milvus  et  pluviae  graculus  auctor  aquae; 

vivit  et  armiferae  cornix  invisa  Minervae  .  . . 
Compare  also  Remedia  Amoris  265-267.     Where  special  em- 
phasis is  desired,  the  repeated  word  may  be  found  at  the  be- 
ginning of  two  or  three  successive  lines,  as  in  Fasti  2.85-87 

Saepe  sequens  agnam  lupus  est  a  voce  retentus, 
saepe  avidum  fugiens  restitit  agna  lupum: 

saepe  canes  leporesque  umbra  cubuere  sub  una. 
The  variation  in  the  metrical  treatment  of  agnarn-lupus  and 
of  agna-lupum  is  worthy  of  note  and  will  be  commented  upon 
later  (p.  74) 52.  Heroides  10.111-115  exhibits  a  different  form 
of  the  elegiac  iteration:  the  repetend  is  moved  onward  to  the 
second  foot  in  lines  113  and  115,  that  the  new  subjects,  apostro- 
phized in  the  verses,  may  have  the  emphasis  of  position: 

Crudeles  somni,  quid  me  terruistis  inertem? 
Aut  semel  aeterna  nocte  premenda  fui. 

Vos  quoque  crudeles,  vend,  nimiumque  parati, 
flaminaque  in  lacrimas  officiosa  meas. 

Dextera  crudelis,  quae  me  fratremque  necavit. 
The  treatment  here  is  artistic  and  fine.  In  line  in  crudeles 
receives  the  emphasis  of  position.  In  113  and  115,  however, 
vos  and  dextera  receive  the  emphasis,  while  crudeles  and  cru- 
delis echo  crudeles  of  in.  In  vos  and  dextera,  again,  ictus  and 
word-accent  coincide ;  finally,  in  crudeles  . .  .  crudeles  . . .  cru- 
delis there  is  identical  metrical  treatment. 

tion  is  not  so  frequent  as  in  Tibullus,  Propertius  and  Ovid.  But  Mar- 
tial is  epigrammatist  rather  than  elegist.  There  is  a  quasi-mournful 
effect  in  this  initial  repetition  of  the  elegists.  Martial  is  rarely  mourn- 
ful, and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  three  epigrams  which  are  -sad  (namely,. 
5-34,  5-37  and  10.6)  there  is  practically  no  repetition. 
63  Cf.  also  Met.  1.556  and  Seneca,  Medea  943-944. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  27 

In  the  Metamorphoses  Ovid  displays  almost  as  much  variety 
and  skill  in  repetition  as  does  Vergil  (cf.  pages  18-21  )53.  I  can 
cite  now  only  instances  of  certain  rhetorical  effects  which  Ovid 
obtains  through  repetition.  In  Met  1.481-482, 

Saepe  pater  dixit  "Generum  mihi,  filia,  debes". 

Saepe  pater  dixit  "Debes  mihi,  nata,  nepotes", 
a  passage  which  gives  Peneus's  appeal  to  his  daughter,  one  is 
reminded  very  strongly  of  certain  effects  seen  in  Poe's  verses, 
where  a  similar  partial  repetend  is  employed.  In  504-506  the 
iteration  nympha . .  .  mane  shows,  as  nothing  else  could,  the 
growing  passion  of  the  god: 

"Nympha,  precor,  Penei,  mane!  non  insequor  hos- 
tis: 

nympha,  mane !  sic  agna  lupum,  sic  cerva  leonem, 

sic  aquilam  penna  fugiunt  trepidante  columbae". 
Indeed,  the  repetition  from  480  to  525  is  worthy  of  study,  for 
those  lines  contain  an  unusually  large  number  of  repeated 
words  and  are  rendered  thereby  more  effective  in  describing 
the  god's  love  for  Daphne  and  his  ardent  appeal  to  her  as  she 
fled  from  him54.  In  4.142-143  initial  repetition  is  again  em- 
ployed to  accentuate  a  passionate  appeal;  the  answer  to  the 
appeal  is  rendered  more  effective  by  the  putting  of  Pyramus 
in  the  first  foot  in  146.  In  12.240-241  the  repetition  reminds 
us  somewhat  of  Horace  Carm.  I.35.i5-i655: 

. . .  Ardescunt  germani  caede  bimembres, 

certatimque  omnes-  ore  "Arma,  arma"  loquuntur. 
Absolute  despair  is  well  emphasized  by  the  doleful  repetition 
of  the  monosyllables  in  Tristia  3.3.7-12   (there  is  here  ana- 
phoraic  repetition  within  the  lines  as  well  as  at  the  beginning 
of  alternate  verses)  : 

Nee  caelum  patior,  nee  aquis  adsuevimus  istis, 
terraque  nescio  quo  non  placet  ipsa  modo. 

Non  domus  apta  satis,  non  hie  cibus  utilis  aegro, 
nullus  Apollinea  qui  levet  arte  malum, 

non  qui  soletur,  non  qui  labentia  tarde 
tempora  narrando  fallat,  amicus  adest5*. 

"  Vergil,   however,    employs    iteration    more    frequently. 

64  Compare  above,  page  6,  on  Aeneid  4.305-330. 

M  ad   arma   cessantes,   ad   arma   concitet. 

MFor  other  instances  of  repetition  see  Amores  1.3.15-21,   15.29-30; 


28  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

Seneca,  it  seems  to  me,  repeats  with  less  idea  of  the  subtle 
effects  of  repetition  than  any  other  Latin  author  of  the  Empire. 
He  adopts,  usually,  the  simplest  forms  and  sometimes  uses  them 
in  a  rather  clumsy  manner.  Rhetorical  effects  are  rare.  One  is 
surprised,  too,  at  the  scarcity  of  iteration  in  the  choruses.  Epi- 
zuexis  occurs,  probably,  more  frequently  than  any  other  form : 
compare  Medea  i3-i657 

MED.     Nunc,  nunc  adeste,  sceleris  ultrices  deae 


adeste, 

853  MED.     Ite,  ite,  nati  matris  infaustae  genus. 

919-922        MED.     luvat,  iuvat  rapuisse  fraternum  caput; 
artus  iuvat  secuisse  et  arcano  patrem 
spoliasse  sacro,  iuvat . .  . 
988-990        IAS.       . . .  Hue,  hue  fortis  armiferi  cohors 

conferte  tela,  vertite  ex  imo  domum. 
MED.     lam  iam  recepi  sceptra,  germanum,  patrem. 
Seneca  depended  upon  epizeuxis  for  nearly  all  the  effects  he 
attained  through  repetition.    For  instance,  above  in  Medea  919- 
922  the  repeated  iuvat  emphasizes  Medea's  haughty  scorn  as 
she  rehearses  Jason's  ingratitude.     In  988  we  hear  Jason's 
hurried  call  to  his  soldiers ;  in  990  we  have  Medea's  cry  of  tri- 
umph.   In  32  epizeuxis  effectively  emphasizes  a  piteous  appeal : 

Da,  da  per  auras  curribus  patriis  vehi. 

Seneca  obtains  his  finest  effect  in  repetition,  to  my  mind,  in 
Medea  137-142 

Quid  tamen  lason  potuit,  alieni  arbitri 
iurisque  factus?    Debuit  ferro  obvium 
offerre  pectus. — Melius,  ah  melius,  dolor 
furiose,  loquere.     Si  potest,  vivat  metis, 
ut  fuit  lason ;  si  minus,  vivat  tamen 
memorque  nostri  muneri  parcat  meo. 

Perhaps  the  best  example  of  repetition  in  the  choruses  is  found 
in  Medea  774-781  (in  the  repetition  of  the  personal  and  the  re- 
lative pronouns) : 

Epist.  ex  Ponto  1.2.131-133;  Fasti  4-91-97:  6.267-269,  295-299;  Heroides 
5.29-32:  10.93-94,  109-110;  Met.  1.98-99,  in,  480-525,  556:  2.284:  3-446: 
5.341-343,    509-600,   625:    6.245-247,   273:    7-108:    8.231-233:    13-607-608: 
15.862-865;  Rem.  Am.  257-258;  Tristia  1.3.85-86,  etc. 
"There  is  virtual  anaphora  also  here  in  adeste. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  29 

Tibi  haec  cruenta  serta  texuntur  manu, 

novena  quae  serpens  ligat, 
tibi  haec  Typhoeus  membra  quae  discors  tulit, 

qui  regna  concussit  lovis. 
Vectoris  istic  perfidi  sanguis  inest, 

quern  Nessus  expirans  dedit. 
Oetaeus  isto  cinere  defecit  rogus, 
qui  virus  Herculeum  bibit. 

In  507-508  we  find  a  rather  effective  antistrophe,  which  re- 
minds us  of  Hamlet  34.9-I358: 

IAS.        Ingrata  vita  est  cuius  acceptae  pudet. 
MED.     Retinenda  non  est  cuius  acceptae  pudet. 
One  thinks  here  of  Euripides's  excessive  fondness  for  repeti- 
tion, ridiculed  by  Aristophanes,  Frogs   1353-1355,  Birds  539, 
Thes.  914-916,  etc. 

As  examples  of  Seneca's  infelicitous  repetition,  I  cite  Medea 
272-273        MED.     Profugere  cogis?    Redde  fugienti  ratem 

et  redde  comitem.  Fugere  cur  solam  iubes  ? 
Why  was  et  put  in  at  the  beginning  of  273,  unless  it  was  to 
throw  the  ictus  for  the  second  time  on  reddet    The  effect  is 
far  from  forceful.    426-427  may  now  be  cited : 
. . .  Faciet  hie  faciet  dies 
quod  nullus  umquam  taceat59 .  . . 

In  Silius  Italicus  we  become  still  more  fully  aware  than  in 
Seneca  that  the  skillful  and  effective  use  of  repetition  was  grad- 
ually passing  toward  its  decline.  Perhaps  the  most  character- 
istic tendency  of  this  decline  is  the  notable  decrease  in  the  num- 
ber of  instances  of  repetition  employed  for  rhetorical  effects. 
Monosyllables  constitute  the  repetend  in  the  majority  of  cases, 
and  the  device  becomes  mechanical  and  colorless. 

Perhaps  the  most  successful  instance  of  a  rhetorical  effect 
gained  by  Silius  Italicus  through  repetition  is  found  in 


"QUEEN  Hamlet,  thou  hast  thy  father  much  offended. 

HAM.  Mother,  you  have  my  father  much  offended. 

QUEEN  Come,  come,  you  answer  with  an  idle  tongue. 

HAM.  Go,  go,  you  question  with  a  wicked  tongue. 

69  For  other  instances  of  Seneca's  repetition  compare  Medea  7-8,  25, 
55,  107-108,  127,  167,  199-200,  290-293,  400,  447-450,  478-481,  487-488, 
560-561,  649-650,  828-830,  922-923,  938,  943-944,  etc.  See  also  his  epigram 
De  Corsica  1-5  (Poetae  Latini  Minores,  4.  page  55). 


3°  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

!•  568,57 1     Ite  citi,  remis  velisque  impellite  puppim 

Ite  citi,  deflate  fidem,  murosque  ruentes. 
17.652-653  is  worthy  of  notice : 

Salve,  invicte  parens,  non  concessure  Quirino 

laudibus,  ac  meritis  non  concessure  Camillo ! 
Silius  is  rather  fond  of  obtaining  emotional  force  of  various 
kinds  by  repeating  an  important  word  twice  in  the  same  line, 
with  an  intervening  word.    Examples  are 
3.116  I  felix,  i  numinibus  votisque  secundis. 

3.509  Nunc,  o !  nunc,  socii,  dominantis  moenia  Romae  . . . 

10.514-515  Quae  postquam  adspexit  geminatus  gaudia  ductor 

Sidonius,  "Fuge,  Varro",  inquit,  "fuge,  Varro  su- 

perstes". 
There  is  mechanical  anaphora  in  1.656-657 

Omnis  Hiber,  omnis  rapidis  fera  Gallia  turmis, 

omnis60  ab  aestifero  sitiens  Libya  imminet  axe. 
Typical  instances  of  monosyllabic  iteration  are 
1.185-187     Hinc  studia  accendit  patriae  virtutis  imago, 

hinc  fama  in  populos  iurati  didita  belli, 

hinc  virides  ausis  anni  fervorque  decorus. 
1.465  praecipiti  dant  tela  viam,  dant  signa,  virique. 

1.561  hinc  puer  invalidique  senes,  hinc  femina  ferre 

certat  opem  . .  . 

An  example  of  inadvertent  repetition  is 
1.517-519     horrida  labentis  perfunditur  arma  cruore. 

Ilicet  ingenti  casu  turbata  iuventus 

procurrit :  nota  arma  viri  corpusque  superbo 

victori  spoliare  negant. 
In  3.425-426  the  repetition  seems  inartistic: 

. . .  letique  Deus  (si  credere  fas  est), 

causa  fuit  leti  miserae  deus  .  .  .61 

There  is  one  type  of  repetition  in  Persius  that  may  be  called 
characteristic.  We  saw  it  in  Plautus  and  Terence62 ;  after  them 
the  instances  of  its  occurrence  are  rare  until  Persius  revives  it, 
in  modified  form,  in  which  he  himself  carries  on  both  sides  of 
the  dialogue,  to  suit  his  dramatic  satire.  I  refer  to  the  interrog- 

"°For  the  metrical  treatment  of  omnis  see  p.  60. 
"For  repetition  in  general  in  Silius  compare  also  1.53,  100-101,  195,. 
242-243,  342-344,  392-394,  658-663;  15-580-583,  etc. 
63  See  pp.  8-9,  11-12. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  31 

ative  repetition  by  a  second  (imaginary)  character  of  a  word  or 
phrase  employed  by  the  first.  Of  the  opposite  form — due  to 
the  lack  of  a  word  for  'yes' — Persius  makes  good  use :  no  ex- 
amples are  needed.  We  may  compare,  for  the  other  character- 
istic type, 
1.86-87  . . .  doctas  posuisse  figuras 

laudatur,  bellum  hoc!  Hoc  bellum?  An,  Romule, 

ceves  ? 

6.68-69        Quid  reliquum  est?  Reliquum?     Nunc,  nunc  im- 
pensius  ungue, 

ungue,  puer,  caules63 ! 
5.66-67  (this  passage  shows  a  slight  variation)  : 

Cras  hoc  fiet  idem.  Cras  fiet  ?  Quid  ?  quasi  magnum 

nempe  diem  donas ! 

5.83-87  also  should  be  noted.     In  1.1-3  both  forms  are,  in  ef- 
fect, combined: 

O  curas  hominum !  O  quantum  est  in  rebus  inane64 ! 

Quis  leget  haec  ?    Min'  tu  istud  ais  ?  Nemo  hercule ! 
Nemo? 

vel  duo,  vel  nemo  .  .  . 

Persius  occasionally  employs  epizeuxis  with  considerable  ef- 
fectiveness, for  example  in  1.120;  i.m 

Nil  moror.    Euge !   omnes  omnes  bene  mirae  eritis 

res. 
Best  of  all  is  3.41-42 

purpureas  subter  cervices  terruit,  imus, 

imus  praecipites,  quam  si  sibi  dicat . . . 

Two  characteristic  examples  of  monosyllabic  iteration  in  Per- 
sius are 
2.49-50        intendit:  lam  crescit  ager,  iam  crescit  ovile, 

iam  dabitur,  iam,  iam! 
6.78-79         . . .  Feci ;  iam  triplex,  iam  mihi  quarto, 

iam  deciens  redit  in  rugam :  depunge,  ubi  sistam  ? 
Persius  employs  a  partial  refrain,  in 
1.45-46         non  ego,  cum  scribo,  si  forte  quid  aptius  exit — 

quando   hoc   rara   avis   est — si  quid   tamen  aptius 
exit . 


63  Cf.  p.  9. 

M  Cf .  Lucilius  9. 


32  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

A  rather  unusual  and  not  altogether  successful  antistrophe 
occurs  in  2.9-10 

ilia  sibi  introrsum  et  sub  lingua  murmurat:  "O  si 

ebulliat  patruus,  praeclarum  funus !"  et:  "O  si . .  ."65 
In  2.53-55,  59  we  find  what  is  probably  an  instance  of  inadver- 
tent and  consequently  inartistic  repetition : 

auro  dona  feram,  sudes  et  pectore  laevo 

excutiat  laetari  praetrepidum  cor. 

Hinc  illud  subiit,  auro  sacras  quod  ovato 


Aurum  vasa  Numae  Saturniaque  impulit  aera .  . . 
In  3.83-84  we  find  a  piling  up  of  words  which  reminds  us  of 
certain  passages  in  Ennius66 : 

. . .  gigni 

de  nihilo  nihilum,  in  nihilum  nil  posse  reverti67. 
If,  in  studying  Lucan,  we  follow  the  views  of  Professor 
Heitland68,  as  I  think  we  must,  we  shall  say  without  hesitation 
that  Lucan's  characteristic  type  of  iteration  is  that  which  we 
have  called  inartistic  or  careless.    Of  the  many  examples  a  few 
may  be  cited. 
1.25,27        urbibus  Italiae  lapsisque  ingentia  muris 


rarus  et  antiquis  habitator  in  urbibus  errat. 

6.257-259     armis,  Scaeva,  tuis,  felix  hoc  nomine  famae, 
si  tibi  durus  Hiber  aut  si  tibi  terga  dedisset 
Cantaber  exiguis  aut  longis  Teutonus  armis69. 

8.194-196    (in   which    Professor   Haskins   notes    only   dedit  - 

dedit)  : 

torsit  et  in  laevum  puppim  dedit,  utque  secaret 
quas  Samiae  cautes  et  quas  Chios  asperat  undas, 
hos  dedit  in  proram,  tenet  hos  in  puppe  rudentes. 

Very  frequently  Lucan  repeats  words  in  the  same  position  in 

65  One  is  reminded  slightly  of  Horace,  Epp.  1.1.64-65. 

66  See  p.  11. 

67  For  an  example  of  a  humorous  effect  obtained  by  Persius  through 
repetition  see  5.132-133.  For  repetition  in  general  in  Persius  compare 
1.26-27,  36-39,  49-55J  2.22-40,  64-68;  3.15,  23,  65-69,  88-89;  5-8,  79-8i; 

6.52-54- 

68  See  above,  page  2. 

"Professor  Haskins  notes  only  the  awkward  repetition  armis-artnis. 
si  tibi  -  si  tibi  in  258,  however,  is  very  far  from  inartistic. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  33 

the  line.    In  many  cases  these  repeated  words  are  clearly  care- 
less, as  in 
7.512-514     inde  faces  et  saxa  volant  spatioque  solutae 

aeris  et  calido  liquefactae  pondere  glandes. 

Tune  et  Ituraei  Medique  Arabesque  soluti70 .  .  . 
In  other  cases,  however,  Lucan  evidently  repeats  words  in  the 
same  position  in  the  line  for  emphasis,  and  occasionally,  also 
for  rhetorical  effects  of  various  sorts. 
2.212,216     Praecipites  haesere  rates,  et  strage  cruenta 

praecipitique  ruens  Tiberina  in  flumina  rivo. 
7.197,200,203 

seu  tonitrus  ac  tela  lovis  praesaga  notavit, 

solis  in  obscuro  pugnam  pallore  notavit. 

augure  mens  hominum  caeli  nova  signa  notasset. 
10.312,314  qua  dirimunt  Arabum  populis  Aegyptia  rura 

qua  dirimunt  nostrum  rubro  commercia  ponto71. 
In  Martial  we  find  repetition  so  clever  and  effective  that  we 
are  reminded  of  the  perfection  of  the  device  in  the  hands  of 
Vergil  and  Horace.  Martial  seldom  strives  for  sonorous  and 
beautiful  effects,  such  as  are  found  in  the  Aeneid,  or  for  the 
artistic  verse  structure,  the  metrical  grace,  so  often  obtained  by 
Horace  through  iteration ;  but  a  curiosa  felicitas  iterandi  is  his. 
He  places  his  repetend — in  most  cases  two  or  more  words — so 
that  it  derives  a  peculiar  emphasis  and  effectiveness  both  from 
position  and  repetition.  Again  in  the  metrical  treatment  of 
repeated  words  he  is  most  skilful.  One  passage  in  which  Mar- 
tial's characteristic  cleverness  in  the  use  of  repetition  may  be 
observed  is  Lib.  Epig.  29.9-12 

Misit  utrique  rudes  et  palmas  Caesar  utrique : 
hoc  pretium  virtus  ingeniosa  tulit. 

Contigit  hoc  nullo  nisi  te  sub  principe,  Caesar : 
cum  duo  pugnarent  victor  uterque  fuit. 

70  Cf.  also  2.677,  680;  3.647,  650,  654;  4.448,  450;  5.546,  548. 

"Compare  7-554-557  for  a  rather  unusual  passage,  filled  with  repeti- 
tion, good  and  bad.  See  also  1.510-513;  5-593-596;  7.i57-i6o;  9-953-9545 
10.213-296  (traductio),  309-310,  516-519,  etc. 


34  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

But  it  can  nowhere  be  seen  to  better  advantage  than  in  his  two- 
line  and  four-line  epigrams.  Fine  instances  are 

1.9     Bellus  homo  et  magnus  vis  idem,  Cotta,  videri: 

sed  qui  bellus  homo  est,  Cotta,  pusillus  homo  est. 
1.47     Nuper  erat  medicus,  nunc  est  vispillo  Diaulus : 

quod  vispillo  facit,  fecerat  et  medicus. 
1.75     Dimidium  donare  Lino  quam  credere  totum 

qui  mavult,  mavult  perdere  dimidium. 

Other  good  examples  are  1.79;  i.no;  2.19;  2.20;  2.38;  2.58; 
3.61;  5.29;  7.43;  8.5;  9.88;  10.43;  "48;  11.92;  12.39;  12.80. 
It  will  be  at  once  observed  that  Martial  depends  almost  entirely 
upon  repetition  to  produce  the  effect  which  he  desires  in  these 
two-line  epigrams.  One  of  the  very  best  is  1.32 

Non  amo  te,  Sabidi,  nee  possum  dicere  quare : 

hoc  tantum  possum  dicere :  non  amo  te72. 
In  these  shorter  poems,  again,  the  very  characteristic  handling 
of  proper  names  should  be  observed.     Martial  frequently  re- 
peats them  just  before  the  last  word  in  the  line,  as  in  7.3. 
This  is  especially  true  when  vocatives  are  employed,  as  in 

7.43     Primum  est  ut  praestes,  si  quid  te,  Cinna,  rogabo; 

illud  deinde  sequens,  ut  cito,  Cinna,  neges. 
Diligo  praestantem ;  non  odi,  Cinna,  negantem : 
sed  tu  nee  praestas,  nee  cito,  Cinna,  negas. 
There  are,   however,   many   variations,   and   vocative  proper 
names  may  be  found  in  any  foot  of  the  line.     Examples  of 
various  sorts  are 

11.92     Mentitur  qui  te  vitiosum,  Zoile,  dicit: 

non  vitiosus  homo  es,  Zoile,  sed  vitium. 
8.5     Dum  donas,  Macer,  anulos  puellis, 

desisti,  Macer,  anulos  habere. 
10.89.1,5-6  luno  labor,  Polyclite,  tuus  et  gloria  felix, 


lunonem,  Polyclite,  suam  nisi  frater  amaret, 

lunonem  poterat  frater  amare  tuam. 
4.69     Tu  Setina  quidem  semper  vel  Massica  ponis, 
Papyle,  sed  rumor  tarn  bona  vina  negat: 

diceris  hac  factus  caelebs  quater  esse  lagona: 
nee  puto  nee  credo,  Papyle,  nee  sitio. 


"For  imitations  of   1.32  in  both  form  and  thought,   see   Professor 
Post's  notes. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  35 

The  opposite  arrangement  to  that  in  4.69  is  found  in  8.51.17-19 
Imbuat  egregium  digno  mihi  nectare  munus 

non  grege  de  domini,  sed  tua,  Ceste,  manus; 
Ceste,  decus  mensae,  misce  Setina73  .  .  . 
Anaphora  is  very  common  in  Martial ;  it  is  found  chiefly  in 
his  hendecasyllabic  verses  (in  this  tendency  his  imitation74  of 
Catullus  is  clearly  seen).  Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  in- 
stance is  5.24,  in  which  each  of  the  15  lines  begin  with  Hermes. 
Other  examples  are  4.39.3-5  (solus — solus — solus),  and  10.35. 
11-12  (nullam — nullam).  An  example  of  the  partial  refrain 
occurs  in  2.18.2,4,6  in  the  triple  occurrence  of  iam  sumus  ergo 
pares.  In  the  twelve  lines  of  9.97  there  are  anaphora,  epanas- 
strophe  or  anadiplosis  (in  the  form  of  epiploce75),  antistrophe, 
epanalepsis76,  and  a  fine  epanadiplosis  (in  the  first  and  last 
lines)  : 

Rumpitur  invidia  quidam,  carissime  luli, 
quod  me  Roma  legit,  rumpitur  invidia, 
rumpitur  invidia,  quod  turba  semper  in  omni 

monstramur  digito,  rumpitur  invidia. 
Rumpitur  invidia,  tribuit  quod  Caesar  uterque 

ius  mihi  natorum,  rumpitur  invidia. 
Rumpitur  invidia,  quod  rus  mihi  dulce  sub  urbe  est 

parvaque  in  urbe  domus,  rumpitur  invidia. 
Rumpitur  invidia,  quod  sum  iucundus  amicis, 

quod  conviva  frequens,  rumpitur  invidia. 
Rumpitur  invidia,  quod  amamur  quodque  probamur : 
rumpatur,  quisquis  rumpitur  invidia77. 

A  similar  piling  up  of  words,  though  in  entirely  different  forms, 
is  seen  in  2.7  and  2.41.1-5. 


73  For  other  examples  compare  pp.  71,  73,  etc.  See  also  1.33;  1.117. 
1-2,  5,  18;  2.19;  2.43.1,  16;  2.58;  3.50,2,  10;  3.63.1,  13-14;  5.29;  5-58; 
6.35.2,  6;  10.43. 

M  On  this  point  see  e.g.  Professor  Post's  edition  of  Martial,  p.  xxx ; 
Paukstadt,  De  Martialis  Catulli  Imitatore  (Halle,  1876),  passim. 

"Recurring  anadiplosis.     See  page  16,  note  25. 

78 1.  e.  the  resumption  or  repetition  of  a  word  or  clause  after  other 
words  or  clauses  have  intervened — usually  to  complete  the  meaning. 

"For  other  instances  of  Martial's  repetition  in  general  see  Lib. 
Epig.  29.1;  1.41.7-15;  1.109.1-5;  1.109.19-23;  2.5.7-8;  2.90.9-10;  475.1; 

6-554-5;    6.63;    7.92;   8.24.6;    8.50.20;    8.55.23-24;    946;    IO.35.I-4;    IO.IOIJ 

ii. 18.1-3;  11.80;  12.67. 


36  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

In  Juvenal  we  become  conscious  immediately,  once  more,  of 
the  downward  tendency  in  the  use  of  repetition  (see  above, 
pp.  28-29)  ;  in  spite  of  occasional  flashes  of  artistry  it  is 
usually  colorless  and  often  rather  clumsy.  Monosyllables 
constitute  the  repetend  in  a  large  number  of  cases,  and  clean- 
cut  rhetorical  effects  are  rare. 

This  characteristic  monosyllabic  iteration  occurs  in 
3.26-27         dum  nova  canities,  dum  prima  et  recta  senectus, 

dum  superest  Lachesi  quod  torqueat  .  .  . 
7.190-194     (et)  .  .  .  felix  et  pulcher  et  acer, 

felix  et  sapiens  et  nobilis  et  generosus, 

appositam  nigrae  lunam  subtexit  alutae; 

felix  orator  quoque  maximus  et  iaculator, 

et,  si  perfrixit,  cantat  bene  .  .  . 

The  repetition  of  felix,  however,  in  this  passage  is  very  effec- 
tive, forming,  as  it  does,  a  well-arranged  and  metrically  varied 
anaphora.  In  5.112-113  there  is  a  fine  epizeuxis: 

poscimus,  ut  cenes  civiliter ;  hoc  face  et  esto, 

esto,  ut  nunc  multi,  dives  tibi,  pauper  amicis. 
An  effective  instance  of  epanalepsis  (see  page  35,  note  76)  is 
8.170-172  .  .  .  praestare  Neronem 

securum  valet  haec  aetas.  Mitte  Ostia,  Caesar, 

mitte,  sed  in  magna  legatum  quaere  popina. 
A  humorous  and  effective  antistrophe  is  found  in  5.135-136, 
portraying  the  attentions  that  would  be  showered  on  the  now 
neglected  Trebius  if  he  were  suddenly  to  become  a  millionaire : 

Da  Trebio!    Pone  ad  Trebium!  vis  f rater  ab  ipsis 

ilibus  ? 
7.197-198     contains  an  interesting  antimetabole78 : 

Si  Fortuna  volet,  fies  de  rhetore  consul ; 

si  volet  haec  eadem,  fies  de  consule  rhetor. 
Eager  appeal79  is  well  emphasized  by  repetition  in 

10.188     "Da  spatium  vitae,  multos  da,  luppiter,  annos!" 
In  7.144-147  there  is  a  rather  unusual,  and  fairly  effective 
treatment  of  a  proper  name: 

.  .  .  atque  ideo  pluris  quam  Callus  agebat, 

quam  Basilus.     Rara  in  tenui  facundia  panno. 

Quando  licet  Basilo  flentem  producere  matrem? 

Quis  bene  dicentem  Basilum  ferat?  .  .  . 

78  See  above,  page  17,  note  26. 

™  Compare  7.156-158  for  an  example  of  surprise  reinforced  by  repeti- 
tion. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  37 

We  turn  now  to  examples  of  colorless  and  inartistic  repe- 
tition.    Quite  frequently  we  find  line  antistrophae  which  are 
far  from  pleasing,  as  in 
1.87-89         Et  quando  uberior  vitiorum  copia?     Quando 

maior  avaritiae  patuit  sinus?    Alea  quando 

hos  animos? 
3.166-167         .  .  .  magno  hospitium  miserabile,  magno 

servorum  ventres,  et  frugi  cenula  magno. 
4'35-36         is  somewhat  similar80. 

.  .  .  Narrate,  puellae 

Pierides.    Prosit  mihi  vos  dixisse  puellas ! 
There  is  infelicitous  line  anaphora  in 
8.4-7  et  Curios  iam  dimidios  umerosque  minorem 

[Corvinum  et  Galbam  auriculis  nasoque  carentem? 

Quis  fructus,  generis  tabula  iactare  capaci] 

Corvinum,  posthac  multa  contingere  virga? 
Instances  of  inartistic  iteration  within  the  lines  are 
8.269-271     Malo  pater  tibi  sit  Thersites,  dummodo  tu  sis 

Aeacidae  similis  Vulcaniaque  arma  capessas, 

quam  te  Thersitae  similem  producat  Achilles. 
10.98,101-102 

ut  rebus  laetis  par  sit  mensura  malorum  ? 


et  de  mensura  ius  dicere,  vasa  minora 
frangere81  .  .  . 

In  the  majority  of  cases,  monosyllables  constitute  Statius's 
repetend.  This  tendency,  first  noticed  in  Silius  Italicus82,  then 
again  in  Juvenal,  is  still  more  marked  in  the  Silvae.  Yet 
there  are  many  instances  of  iteration  in  Statius  in  which  mono- 
syllables are  not  employed,  and  where  there  is  evidence  of 
real  appreciation  on  the  part  of  the  poet  of  the  possibilities 
inherent  in  the  device83.  Examples  are 


80  Compare  also  10.196-197.  But  the  repetition  of  nescio  in  13.33-34  i* 
effective. 

81  For  other  examples  of  Juvenal's  repetition  see  1.22-26,  51-53,  125- 
J26;  3.53,   158,  190-192,  211,  230;  5-49-51,  90-91,  114,  133-134;  7.50-51, 
84-85,  90-91,  94-95,   134-135,  223;  8.147-151,   159-160,  213-214,  243-244; 
10.7,  122,  173-176;   11.63,  125;  12.111;   13.67-69;   14.71-72,  294;   16.43-44, 
59-6o. 

82  See  p.  29. 

83  For  one  especially  effective  example  see  Silvae   1.2.197-198. 


38  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

I-2-33~34         Pone  o  dulcis  suspiria  vates, 
pone:  .  .  . 

1. 2.22 1         hie  movet  Ortygia,  movet  hie  rapida  agmina  Nysa. 

A  fine  effect  is  gained  by  the  anaphoraic  repetition  of  cedant 

in  1.3-83-85,  88-89 

cedant  Telegoni,  cedant  Laurentia  Turni 
iugera  Lucrinaeque  domus  litusque  cruenti 
Antiphatae,  cedant  vitreae  iuga  perfida  Circes 

cedant,  quae  te  iam  solibus  artis 

avia  nimbosa  revocabunt  litora  bruma. 
Good  also  is  1.4.123-124 

Nectite  nunc  laetae  candentia  fila,  sorores, 

nectite ! 

Statius  is  rarely  careless  or  inartistic  in  his  repetition.  His 
monosyllabic  iteration,  however,  is  perfunctory  and  colorless. 
1.2.43-45  Nee  si  Dardania  pastor  temerarius  Ida 

sedisses,  haec  dona  forent,  nee  si  alma  per  auras 

te  .  .  .  veheret  .  .  . 

1.2.267        qui  leges,  qui  castra  regant,  qui  carmina  ludant. 
1.6.93-97     quis  spectacula,  quis  iocos  licentis, 

quis  convivia,  quis  dapes  inemptas, 

largi  flumina  quis  canat  Lyaei  ? 

Iam  iam  deficio  tuoque  Baccho 

.  .  .  trahor84  .  .  . 

Since  the  Pervigilium  Veneris  was  written  at  a  time  when 
the  artistic  use  of  repetition  was  vanishing,  we  are  doubly  imj 
pressed  by  the  consummate  skill  with  which  the  writer  of  this 
poem  has  introduced  his  repetitions.  The  poem  opens  with  a 
beautiful  verse  set  off  by  an  effective  epanadiplosis,  which  is 
repeated  as  a  refrain  in  8,12,36,48,57,62,75,80,93 

Cras  amet  qui  numquam  amavit  quique  amavit  eras 

amet! 
In  2-3  we  find 

Ver  novum,  ver  iam  canorum,  ver  renactus  orbis  est ! 

Vere  concordant  amores,  vere  nubunt  alites. 
Lines  remarkable  for  effective  repetition  are  28,  30,  31,  32,  34, 

35 

Ipsa  Nymphas  diva  luco  iussit  ire  myrteo : 


84  Cf.  also  i.  1.11-13,  79-81,  2.56-57,  148-149,  183,  197-198,  217-218,  233- 
234,  3.29-30,  57-59,  99-104,  5-3-4,  48-49,  6.46-47,  76-8i,  etc. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  39 


Ite,  Nymphae;  posuit  arma,  feriatus  est  Amor; 
iussus  est  inermis  ire,  nudus  ire  iussus  est, 

sed  tamen,  Nymphae,  cavete,  quod  Cupido  pulcher 
est: 

totus  est  in  armis  idem  quando  nudus  est  Amor. 
In  53-56  we  may  note  the  fine  emphasis  and  balance  obtained 
by  the  repetition  of  puellac  within  53,  the  movement  imparted 
to  54  by  the  repeated  quaeque,  and,  finally,  the  anaphora85  in 

55-56: 

Ruris  hie  erunt  puellae  vel  puellae  fontium 

quaeque  silvas  quaeque  lucos  quaeque  montes  in- 
colunt. 

lussit  omnes  adsidere  pueri  mater  alitis, 

iussit  at  nudo  puellas  nil  Amori  credere. 

Lines  89-92  provide  an  artistic  bit  of  identical  metrical  treat- 
ment (in  tacemus — tacendo — tacerent).  The  anaphora  quando 
— quando,  followed  by  perdidi — perdidit,  adds  to  the  general 
effectiveness : 

Ilia  cantat :  nos  tacemus  ?  quando  ver  venit  meum  ? 

Quando  faciam  uti  chelidon  vel  tacere  desinam? 

Perdidi  Musam  tacendo  nee  me  Phoebus  respicit. 

Sic  Amyclas  cum  tacerent  perdidit  silentium. 
That  monosyllables  may  be  so  repeated  as  to  be  a  material  aid 
to  the  spirit  and  movement  of  the  line,  we  see  from  33 

Neu  quid  arcu  neu  sagitta  neu  quid  igne  laederet. 
45  Nee  Ceres  nee  Bacchus  absunt  nee  poetarum  deus86. 

Ausonius  confines  his  repetition  almost  entirely  to  iteration 
of  monosyllables.  He  rarely  obtains  a  real  rhetorical  effect 
through  repetition,  and  the  device  in  his  hands  continues  to 
decrease  in  value  and  effectiveness.  Three  examples  of  fairly 
good,  though  mechanical,  iteration  will  be  cited  first. 
Mosella  196-197 

annumerat  virides  derisus  navita  vites, 

navita  caudiceo  fluitans  super  aequora  lembo. 
355-356        Sura  tuas  properat  non  degener  ire  sub  undas, 


85  Cf.  also  40-41,  51-52. 

88  For  other  examples  of  iteration  in  this  poem  see  13-15,  37-38,  44, 


49-52,  76-79,  etc. 


40  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

Sura   interceptis   tibi   gratificata   fluentis. 

431  Dives  aquis,  dives  Nymphis,  largitor  utrique  .  .  , 

An  example  of  careless  iteration  is  seen  in 
258,262,265  aura  crepat,  motoque  assibilat  acre  ventus 

segnis  anhelantis  vitam  consumit  in  auris. 

nee  coeunt  rictus  :haustas  sed  hiatibus  auras. 
Lines  477-483  contain  good  anaphorae  (te — te,  etc.),  but  the 
effectiveness  is  considerably  lessened  by  the  inartistic  and  ap- 
parently unconscious  iteration  in  ripis — ripae: 

Te  fontes  vivique  lacus,  te  caerula  noscent 
flumina,  te  veteres  pagorum  gloria  luci : 
te  Druna,  te  sparsis  incerta  Druentia  ripis, 
Alpinique  colent  fluvii,  duplicemque  per  orbem 
qui  meat  et  dextrae  Rhodanus  dat  nomina  ripae. 
Te  stagnis  ego  caeruleis,  magnumque  sonoris 
amnibus,  aequoreae  te  commendabo  Garumnae. 
I  quote  now  a  typical  example  of  the  colorless  monosyllabic 
repetition  which  seems   to  be  so  characteristic  of  the  later 
writers : 

321-324        Haec  est  natura  sublimis  in  aggere  saxi, 
haec  procurrentis  fundata  crepidine  ripae, 
haec  refugit  captumque  sinu  sibi  vindicat  amnem. 
Ilia  tenens  collem,  qui  plurimus  imminet  amni87  .  .  . 
Anaphora  is   the  characteristic   form  of   repetition  in  the 
poems  of  Claudian.    There  is  a  small  decrease  in  the  number 
of  instances  of  monosyllabic  iteration.     Claudian,  indeed,  em- 
ploys repetition  more  successfully  than  any  other  of  the  later 
writers,  with  the  exception  of  Martial  and  the  author  of  the 
Pervigilium  Veneris.     Examples  are  De  Raptu   Proserpinae 
1.134-136 

Mars  clipeo  melior,  Phoebus  praestantior  arcu. 
Mars  donat  Rhodopen,  Phoebus  largitur  Amyclas 
et  Delon  Clariosque  lares. 
1.191-192     Heu  quotiens  praesaga  mali  violavit  oborto 

rore  genas !     Quotiens  oculos  ad  tecta  retorsit. 
2.8i.-83         Quidquid  turiferis  spirat  Panchaia  silvis, 

quidquid  odoratus  longe  blanditur  Hydaspes, 
quidquid  ab  extremis  ales  longaevus  harenis. 

87  For  other  examples  of  repetition  in  Ausonius  see  Mosella  27-28,  29- 
32,  106-164,  359-36i,  417-418,  426,  461-463,  etc. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  41 

Rather  effective  intralinear  repetition  is  found  in  De  Quarto 

Consulatu  Honorii  Augusti 

349-350        nunc  eques  in  medias  equitum  te  consere  turmas, 

nunc  pedes  assistas  pediti  .... 

Perhaps  Claudian's  finest  line,  so  far  as  successful  repetition 
is  concerned,  is  In  Eutropium  Lib.  II  Praef.  59 

Emeritum  suspende  sagum,  suspende  pharetram. 
It  must  be  said,  however,  that  Claudian  is  very  little  superior  to 
his   predecessors   in   his   treatment   of   monosyllables,   as   the 
following  examples  show:  Epithalamium  Dictum  Paladio  et 
Celerinae  60-63 

convenere  domus  et  qui  lectissimus  orbi 

sanguis  erat.    Rubris  quae  fluctibus  insula  latrat, 

quis  locus  Aethiopum,  quae  sic  impervia  famae 

secessit  regio,  quo  non  rumore  secundo  .  .  . 
In  Rufinum  2.95-97  •  •  •  dilecta  his  pignora  certe, 

hie  domus,  hie  thalamis  primum  genialibus  omen, 

hie  tibi  felices  erexit  regia  taedas88. 

As  in  Claudian,  so  in  Prudentius,  anaphora  is  found  more 
frequently  than  any  other  form  of  repetition.  He  is  rather 
mechanical,  therefore  (since  anaphora  is,  of  all  forms  of  iter- 
ation, the  most  mechanical),  in  his  use  of  repeated  words,  but 
not  infrequently  obtains  good  results.  Monosyllables  are  re- 
peated probably  less  than  in  Claudian.  I  quote  only  five  ex- 
amples from  Prudentius  (all  but  one  illustrate  his  use  of  ana- 
phora) :  Hymnus  ante  Sompnum  5-8 
O  Trinitatis  huius 

vis  una,  lumen  unum, 

Deus  ex  Deo  perennis, 

Deus  ex  utroque  missus89  .  .  . 
Hymnus  ad  Incensum  Lucernae  151-152 

lucem,  qua  tribuis  nil  pretiosius, 

lucem,  qua  reliqua  praemia  cernimus. 

88  Compare  also  for  monosyllabic  repetition,  De  Quarto  Con.  Hon. 
Aug.  492-501 ;  In  Rufinum  1.230-232.  For  other  examples  of  repetition 
in  Claudian  see  De  Bello  Gildonico  266-267,  410-413;  De  Nuptiis 
Honorii  Augusti  et  Mariae  219-220,  254-255 ;  De  Tertio  Consulatu  Hon. 
Aug.  204-205;  De  Quarto  Con.  Hon.  Aug.  120-121,  257-259,  530-531, 
603-604;  De  Raptu  Pros.  1.136-137;  In  Eutropium  II  Praef.  17,  47-48; 
In  Rufinum  2.26-28,  64-66,  92,  240-241;  Fescennina  45-46,  131-132;  etc. 

"Note  the  antistrophe  in  line  6. 


42  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

Hymnus  Omni  Hora  22-23 

Psallat  altitude  caeli,  psallite  omnes  angeli, 
quidquid  est  virtutis  usquam  psallat  in  laudem  Dei. 
82-83  Solve  vocem  mens  sonoram,  solve  linguam  mobilem, 

die  tropaeum  passionis,  die  triumphalem  crucem. 
Hymnus  ad  Incensum  Lucernae  153-154  gives  a  virtual  ana- 
phora, followed  by  a  rather  effective  anadiplosis; 
Tu  lux  vera  oculis,  lux  quoque  sensibus, 
intus  tu  speculum,  tu  speculum  foris90. 

The  repetition  in  the  Apotheosis  is  remarkable  throughout. 
Deus,  Christus,  Pater,  Verbum,  and  kindred  words  are  re- 
peated times  innumerable  all  the  way  through  the  poem,  in 
anaphoraic  forms,  in  a  most  interesting  way.  Lack  of  space 
forbids  citation  from  it  here. 

We  have  now  followed  the  device  of  repetition  in  Latin  over 
a  period  extending,  approximately,  from  250  B.C.  to  400  A.D., 
and  have  examined  the  works  of  twenty-two  poets,  together 
with  one  anonymous  poem.  It  is  clear  that  every  Roman  poet 
of  any  consequence  consciously  employs  repetition  more  or 
less  frequently,  as  a  factor  in  his  style;  it  is  equally  clear  that 
success  in  the  handling  of  repetition  varies  greatly  in  the  dif- 
ferent poems,  and  that  with  the  general  decline  of  poetic  power 
and  workmanship  that  marks  the  Silver  Age  and  the  days  that 
succeeded  it  goes  also  a  decline  in  the  power  to  handle  repeti- 
tion with  skill  and  effectiveness. 


90  Cf.  also  Hymnus  Matutinus  33-36,  etc.  For  other  examples  of 
repetition  in  Prudentius  see  Apotheosis  845-848 ;  Hymnus  Omni  Hora 
88-89,  109;  Passio  Hippolyti  Martyris  12-15,  239-245;  Passio  Agnetis- 
Virginis  16-17;  Romani  Martyris  Supplicium  294-309  (pronoun  tra- 
ductio). 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  METRICAL  TREAMTENT  OF  REPEATED 
WORDS  IN  LATIN. 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  the 
general  rules  and  principles  which  guided  the  Latin  poets  in 
determining  the  metrical  treatment  of  repeated  words. 

Let  us  first  inquire  what  is  the  natural  thing,  from  the 
standpoint  of  metrics,  for  a  writer  to  do  with  a  repeated  word; 
shall  he  so  place  it  that  it  shall  receive  similar  metrical  treat- 
ment, or  shall  he  give  it  variant  treatment?  Clearly,  a  word 
repeated  in  a  line  or  in  adjacent  lines  with  the  same  metrical 
value  will  be  weightier  than  one  repeated  with  variant  metrical 
treatment.  In  the  latter  case,  the  attention  is  diverted  by  the 
changed  ictus;  in  the  former  it  is  fixed  more  firmly  upon  the 
repeated  word.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  to  reckon  with 
a  craving,  sometimes  conscious,  sometimes  unconscious,  for 
variety.  In  Latin  word-order,  for  instance,  that  tendency  dis- 
plays itself  in  the  automatic  employment  of  chiasmus.  Again, 
just  because  of  the  effectiveness  of  repetition  with  identical 
treatment,  the  poet  must  beware  of  carrying  such  repetition  too 
far.  We  saw,  in  Chapter  I,  that  the  editors  who  have  ob- 
served repetition  in  Latin  at  all  confine  their  remarks,  in  the 
main,  to  passages  in  which  repeated  words  receive  different 
metrical  treatment.  That  is  strange,  first,  because  of  the 
numerous  examples  of  identical  treatment  in  which  notable 
effects  are  produced1  (in  many  of  these  instances,  perhaps  in 
a  majority  of  them,  this  identical  treatment  could  have  been 
avoided),  and,  secondly,  because  of  the  existence  of  a  large 


1  Compare  e.g.  Aeneid  3.566-567;  Martial  1.41.7-15;  Horace,  Carm. 
4.13.10-12;  2.9.1,  9,  17;  Aeneid  5.176;  Catullus  112,  Aeneid  1.222; 
Horace,  Carm.  1.15.  9-10;  Catullus  8.11-12,  19;  Horace,  Carm.  1.2.21— 
24;  2.4.2-5;  Prudentius,  Hymnus  Omni  Hora  22-23;  Catullus  64.285- 
286;  Plautus,  Most.  561-612,  etc. 


44  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

number  of  words  which,  if  repeated  at  all,  could  receive  only 
identical  treatment  (for  instance,  words  which  make  a  dactyl 
or  fit  readily  into  a  dactyl  in  hexameter  verse).  Since  repe- 
tition is  never  an  absolute  prerequisite  to  effective  writing, 
the  transparent  willingness,  nay,  eagerness,  of  the  poets  to 
repeat  such  words2,  is  itself  a  priori  ground  against  any  such 
contention  as  Mr.  Page  seems  to  make3,  that  the  accent  is  by 
preference  changed  in  repetition ;  rather  is  it  proof  of  a  great 
liking  for  identical  treatment. 

A  careful  study  of  the  examples  I  have  collected  from  the 
Latin  poets  considered  in  Chapter  II  leads  me  to  submit  the 
following  as  a  general  rule  for  the  metrical  treatment  of 
words  repeated,  letter  for  letter  or  with  only  slight  varia- 
tions, in  the  same  or  closely  adjacent  verses :  wherever  the 
poet  desires  to  secure  a  special  effect  of  emphasis  or  clear-* 
ness  or  to  produce  some  rhetorical  effect  (whether  emotional, 
as  in  emphasizing  or  reinforcing  the  expression  of  joy,  pathos, 
surprise,  anger,  etc.,  or  formal,  as  in  examples  of  anaphora,  an- 
tistrophe,  etc.),  in  a  word,  in  the  more  effective  instances  of 
repetition,  the  repeated  word  receives  identical  metrical  treat- 
ment. If  no  special  effect  is  desired,  variant  treatment  is 
found  most  frequently4.  Variant  treatment,  again,  may  result 
from  sheer  love  of  variety,  from  metrical  exigency,  from  care- 
lessness, or  from  the  sacrifice  of  identical  treatment  in  the 
interest  of  some  other  effect  which  seems  to  the  poet  at  the 
moment  more  desirable5.  Identical  metrical  treatment,  then, 


2Cf.  e.g.  Horace,  Carm.  4.13.1-2;  A.  P.  269;  Aeneid  3-639-640;  Bu- 
colics 3.85-86;  Catullus  62.28;  58.1-2;  Bucolics  2.65,  69;  Persius  2.22- 
23,  29,  40;  Martial  2.58;  7.3.1-2;  Statius,  Silvae  1.2.197-198;  Bucolics 
1.3-4,  etc. 

3  See  above,  p.  2. 

*  There  are  a  great  many  exceptions,  but  the  rule  holds  good  in  the 
vast  majority  of  cases.  I  shall  endeavor  to  cite  in  this  chapter  the 
best  examples  of  the  respective  phenomena,  and  therefore  some  pas- 
sages may  occur  which  have  been  quoted  before.  Furthermore,  in 
some  cases,  the  same  passage  contains  good  examples  of  the  metrical 
treatment  of,  say,  a  noun  and  a  verb;  such  passages  will  occur  here 
more  than  once. 

5  See  below,  page  45,  and  compare  the  comment  on  Catullus  94.1  on 
page  63. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  45 

is  to  be  regarded  as  characteristic  of  the  best  poetic  usage,  as 
normal  in  the  most  effective  writing.  We  thus  reach  a  con- 
clusion opposite  to  that  set  forth  in  terms  by  Mr.  Page,  and  by 
implication  in  the  notes  of  other  editors.  It  may  be  noted  also 
that  my  rule  differs  considerably  from  that  of  Professor 
Knapp  (see  above,  page  4).  Furthermore,  examples  are  oc- 
casionally found  of,  say,  pronominal  or  adjectival  iteration 
where  the  variant  treatment  of  the  repeated  word,  by  diverting 
the  attention  from  the  word  itself,  serves  to  aid  in  the  em- 
phasis imparted  to  the  leading  word  of  the  clause.  A  note- 
worthy instance  of  this  phenomenon  is  Aeneid  3.503-504 
(p.  59 )6.  Likewise,  in  the  case  of  monosyllabic  words  not  in 
themselves  emphatic  or  weighty,  there  is  some  leaning  toward 
variant  treatment  (see  pp.  48  ff.)7.  In  cases  of  repetition  which 
take  the  form  of  epizeuxis,  variant  metrical  treatment  is  almost 
inevitable;  see  below,  pages  55-56.  Again,  the  poets  exhibit 
many  instances  of  variant  treatment,  in  which  identical  treat- 
ment would  have  been  more  effective.  But  here,  too,  we  must 
reckon  with  the  poet's  care  not  to  overwork  and  thereby  cheap- 
en what  he  realized  was  a  most  serviceable  device  for  directing 
attention  emphatically  to  feelings  and  emotions  of  various 
kinds.  There  are,  therefore,  cases  where  our  judgment  in- 
clines to  brand  as  careless  and  inartistic  repetitions  which  may, 
in  fact,  have  been  worked  out  by  the  poet  with  the  greatest 
care.  It  should  be  noted,  also,  that  desire  for  juxtaposition  or 
chiasmus  sometimes  leads  to  variant  treatment  as  well  as  to 


6  Cf .  also  Juvenal  11.125. 

7  In   Seneca,   Medea   167    (p.   74)    there  is  a  very  unusual  phenom- 
enon— one  which   I   have  seen   nowhere  else.     By  means   of  variant 
treatment  the  second  rex  receives  a  powerful  emphasis. 

Compare  e.g.  Aeneid  2.108-111;  Horace,  Carm.  1.2.2-6;  Plautus, 
Most.  181;  Aeneid  4.3;  Martial  2.7;  Horace,  Carm.  1.2.2-6;  3.5.18,  21- 
22;  Lucretius  6.2-5;  Horace  Serm.  1.7.23-24;  Aeneid  6.46;  Aeneid 
1.200-201,  204,  234-235:  2.97-98,  108-110,  306:  3.490,  500,  539-540,  708- 
710:  4.25-26,  141,  147,  153,  109-200,  320-321,  413,  437,  548,  566-567,  657, 
676-679:  6.625,  828-829,  865,  872;  Horace,  Carm.  1.5.10;  Persius  5.1-2; 
Terence,  Andria  382;  Propertius  2.8.7.  For  special  considerations  at 
work  here  at  times  see  below,  page  48,  note  15. 


46  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

identical  treatment.  Catullus  94.1  is  an  example  in  point.  The 
noun  mentula  receives  identical  treatment,  while  the  treatment 
of  moechatur  is  varied8. 

There  is  one  other  type  of  variant  treatment  which  should 
be  noted,  namely,  that  which  is  attended  by  alterations  in 
vowel  quantity :  see  below,  pages  78-79. 

In  view  of  the  fondness  of  the  poets  for  repeating  deliber- 
ately with  identical  metrical  treatment  words  which,  by  reason 
of  the  metrical  value  of  the  word,  they  were  free  to  employ 
with  variant  metrical  treatment,  in  view,  too,  of  their  fondness 
for  employing  twice  or  more  in  close  proximity  words  to  which 
they  were  compelled  to  accord  identical  metrical  treatment,  if 
they  repeated  them  at  all,  it  is  not  surprising  that  similar  treat- 
ment occurs  more  frequently  than  variant  treatment.  It  should 
be  remarked,  however,  that,  in  the  case  of  words  which  re- 
quire identical  treatment,  the  effectiveness  of  repetition  is  often 
not  so  marked  as  it  is  in  passages  where  the  poet,  though  free 
to  repeat  words  with  variant  treatment,  deliberately  employs 
identical  metrical  treatment.  Furthermore,  the  effectiveness 
of  identical  metrical  treatment  may  be  impaired  when  that 
treatment  is  the  result  of  the  poet's  striving  after  juxtaposi- 
tion, chiasmus  or  the  like9. 

When  a  word  occurs  three  times  in  closely  connected  lines, 
identical  and  variant  treatment  are  usually  combined10 ;  har- 
mony and  variety  are  thus  simultaneously  obtained.  If,  how- 


8  Compare  also  Martial  1.79.1;  8.24.6;  Persius  1.86-87.  Ovid,  Heroides 
5.29-32  is  interesting,  though  Paris  -  Paris  really  forms  antimetabole 
rather  than  chiasmus.  Cf.  also  Horace  Serm.  1.1.17-18. 

9Cf.  e.g.  Martial  1.76;  Catullus  64.285-286;  78.3-4;  94- 1 ',  Aeneid 
3.159-160;  Ovid,  Met.  2.284:  6.273;  Persius  3.41-42.  It  will  be  seen 
that  in  some  of  these  passages  the  juxtaposition  works  no  detriment 
to  the  repetition.  In  Catullus  94.1  mentula  could  receive  no  other 
treatment,  and  its  iteration  within  the  line  is  made  possible  by  chias- 
mus. 

10  Compare  e.g.  pp.  49-51,  passim;  Ovid,  Met.  6.245-247;  Catullus  78.3- 
4;  Silius  Italicus  1.656-657;  Juvenal  7.190-193;  Persius  3.83-84;  Ae- 
neid 2.176-185,  189-192:  4.138-139,  600-601:  6.787-789;  Horace,  Epp. 
2.1.46,  60-61;  Ovid,  Fasti  6.295-299;  Heroides  10.109-110;  Martial  10.101 ;. 
Lucan,  Phar.  3.157-158;  Juvenal  1.87-88:  3.166-167:  8.213-214. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  47 

ever,  special  emphasis  or  some  emotional  effect  is  sought,  the 
word  most  frequently  receives  identical  metrical  treatment 
throughout  and  appears  in  the  same  position  in  the  successive 
lines;  in  such  cases  anaphora  or  antistrophe  is  frequent  (see 
below,  pages  49-50) 11. 

No  rule  can  be  laid  down  for  metrical  treatment  where  a 
word  is  repeated  more  than  three  times  in  a  given  passage.  All 
sorts  of  variations  are  possible  and  many  of  the  poets  ex- 
ercise considerable  ingenuity  in  the  development  and  handling 
of  them12. 

There  is  one  more  phenomenon  which  should  be  noted  at  this 
point.  I  refer  to  the  repetition  of  more  than  one  word  in  a 
given  passage.  No  rule  can  be  laid  down  which  will  cover 
enough  cases  to  justify  it.  I  incline  to  think  that  the  more 
usual  treatment  here  is,  in  the  case  of,  say,  two  pairs  of  words, 
to  give  one  identical,  the  other  variant,  treatment13,  though  this 
form  is  of  little  greater  frequency  than  some  of  its  many  pos- 
sible variations1*. 


11  Compare  e.g.  Claudian,  De  TV  Con.  Hon.  Aug.  530-531 ;  Plautus, 
Most.  264;  Catullus  8.11-12,  19:  51.13-16:  64.39-41:  95.1-6;  Bucolics 
2.65,  69;  Statius,  Silvae  1.2.197-198;  Juvenal  7.144-147;  Horace,  Carm. 
1.12.57-60,  15.9-10:  2.9.1,  9,  17,  16.1-8;  Ep>p.  1.1.23-25;  Lucan,  Phar. 
3.647-654:  7.197-203;  Aeneid  3.523-524:  6.661-664:  7.92,  94,  96,  103; 
Persius  2.64-66;  Martial  1.117.1,  5,  8:  3.63.1,  13-14:  4-39-3-5:  6.55.4-5; 
Juvenal  10.196-197;  Claudian,  De  Raptu  Pros.  2.81-83;  Tibullus  1.5.61- 
65;  Propertius  3.14.3-7;  Ovid,  Fasti  2.85-87:  6.267-269;  Heroides  10. 
111-115;  Met.  4.142-146:  5.341-343:  8.231-233. 

"Compare  e.g.  Martial  1.41.7-15;  Ovid,  Met.  6.245-247;  Martial  2.7: 
12.39:  1.18;  5.79-81;  Plautus,  Most.  561-612  (partly  quoted  on  p.  76); 
Horace,  Carm.  i.io.i,  5,  9,  13,  17,  31.1-7,  35-5-6,  g,  17,  21 :  4.1.29-32,  13.17- 
20,  14.33-34,  41-42,  45-47,  49,  51 ;  Serm.  1.3.7-13;  Vergil,  Aeneid  2.150-151 ; 
Bucolics  3.56-57,  60;  Lucretius  2.54-59;  Lucilius  20-22,  243-246,  729-730, 
1284-1286,  1326-1333;  Catullus  57-13:  43.I-4:  61.51-75,  128-140:  63.62- 
71:  64.256-259;  Lucan,  Phar.  7.544-557;  Martial  1.109.1-5:  2.41.1-5: 
5.24,  58:  7.43:  9.97:  12.39;  Ovid,  Fasti  6.91-97;  Pervig.  Ven.  2-3,  28- 
35,  89-92. 

"Compare  e.  g.  Aeneid  2.479-485:  4.628-629:  5.186-187;  Horace, 
Epp.  2.1.46;  Propertius  2.3.17-22. 

14  For  some  variations  see  Ennius,  Scenica  322-323 ;  Aeneid  2.389-392, 


48  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

Let  us  begin  the  illustration  of  the  above  principles  with  an 
examination  of  repeated  monosyllables.  Where  a  monosyllable 
occurs  twice  in  the  same  line  (or  in  adjacent  lines),  in  the 
second  occurrence  it  is  usually  without  metrical  accent,  while 
the  first  begins  the  line15  and  carries  the  ictus.  Very  frequently, 
too,  the  two  monosyllables  lie  on  opposite  sides  of  the  main 
caesura  of  the  verse10.  This  form  of  monosyllabic  iteration  is 
very  widely  employed  by  all  the  poets,  especially  by  writers  of 
hexameter  verse.  Examples  are 
Catullus  62.4 

lam  veniet  virgo,  iam  dicetur  Hymenaeus. 
Vergil,  Aeneid  1.204 

Per  varies  casus,  per  tot  discrimina  rerum  . . . 
3.80  Rex  Anius,  rex  idem  hominum  Phoebique  sacerdos. 

3.111-112     Hinc  mater  cultrix  Cybeli  Corybantiaque  aera 

Idaeumque  nemus;  hinc  fida  silentia  sacris. 
4.36  Non  Libyae,  non  ante  Tyro ;  despectus  larbas  .  .  . 

4-52~53         dum  pelago  desaevit  hiemps,  et  aquosus  Orion, 

quassataeque  rates,  dum  non  tractabile  caelum. 
4.548  Tu  lacrimis  evicta  meis,  tu  prima  furentem17 . . . 

6.134  bis  Stygios  innare  lacus,  bis  nigra  videre  .  .  . 

Horace,  Sermones  1.4.47 

nee  verbis  nee  rebus  inest,  nisi  quod  pede  certo  . . . 
2.7.112,114  non  horam  tecum  esse  potes,  non  otia  recte 


iam  vino  quaerens,  iam  somno  fallere  curam. 
Claudian,  In  Eutropium  II  Praef.  17 

Non  acie  victi,  non  seditione  coacti18 . . . 

435-436:  3.436-438;  Bucolics  2.62-64;  Ovid,  Fasti  2.85-87;  Pervig.  Ven. 
44-45,  49-52,  53-56;  Claudian,  De  Con.  IV  Hon.  Aug.  349-351. 

13  Since  monosyllables  are  often  not  per  se  important  words,  we 
should  expect  to  find  them  receiving,  normally,  variant  treatment. 

18  This  observation  applies  frequently  throughout  the  classes  noted  on 
pages  48-59.  It  applies  also,  though  perhaps  less  often,  to  the 
cases  of  repeated  monosyllables  with  identical  treatment  seen  in 

53  ff. 

17  Omitted  in  Teubner  text. 

18  For  other  similar  instances  see  Ennius,  Annales  194,  359;  Lucilius 
97-98,  1340;  Lucretius  6.779,   1276;   Catullus  62.45,  47:   110.5;  Horace, 
Epp.  1. 1.66;  Aeneid  2.62,  154-156,  198,  218,  227,  264,  296,  322,  361,  etc.: 
6.466,   479,    560-561,    588,    615,    670,    791,    etc.;    Bucolics    1.33:    2.60-61: 
3.88,  no:  4-40:  5-34,  38,  60,  76-77:  7-5,  14-15,  43-44,  49,  64:  8.45:  9-i6,  19, 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  49 

We  may  note  now  some  other  examples,  which  show  mono- 
syllables occurring  twice,  in  varying  positions,  with  variant 
treatment,  but  with  the  second  instance  of  the  monosyllable 
carrying  the  ictus.  This  form  is  quite  frequent  in  all  the 
poets,  and  probably  occurs  outside  of  hexameter  verse  quite  as 
frequently  as  the  type  illustrated  on  the  preceding  pages.  Ex- 
amples are  Horace  Carm.  1.13.5 

Turn  nee  mens  mihi  nee  color. 

Serm.  1.1.17-18  (here  variant  treatment  of  each  of  two  dif- 
ferent monosyllables  is  secured  by  a  chiasmus)  : 

mercator:  tu  consultus  modo  rusticus;  hinc  vos, 

vos  hinc  mutatis  discedite  partibus. 
Aeneid  3.599-600 

cum  fletu  precibusque  tulit:  "per  sidera  testor 

per  superos  ..." 
Claudian,  In  Eutropium  II  Praef.  47-48 

Vive  pudor  f  atis  !    En  quern  tremuere  tot  urbes ! 

En  cuius  populi  sustinuere  iugum ! 
Martial  1.33.1,3: 

Amissum  non  flet,  cum  sola  est,  Gellia  patrem, 

Non  luget  quisquis  laudari,  Gellia,  quaerit. 
3.61.2  si  nil,  Cinna,  petis,  nil  tibi,  Cinna,  nego19. 

When  a  monosyllable  is  thrice  repeated  in  the  same  line  or  in 
closely  adjacent  lines,  the  usual  practice  among  the  Roman 
poets,  so  far  as  my  collections  indicate,  is  to  let  the  ictus  fall  on 
the  first  and  third  instances  of  the  monosyllable,  and  to  leave 
the  second  instance  without  metrical  accent.  Further,  the  first 
and  third  instances  frequently  stand  at  the  beginning  of  two 
successive  lines.  Though  this  is  true  of  all  the  poets,  examples 
are  found  most  frequently  in  hexameter  verse.  Compare  Lu- 
cretius 6.1276,1278 

nee  iam  religio  divom  nee  numina  magni 

24,  57;  Persius  1.53-54:  3.68;  Ovid,  Amores  1.13-15;  Met.  1.98-99;  Tris- 
tia  1.3.52:  3-37;  Juvenal  1.26,  53:  10.188:  11.125:  14.294;  Martial  2.7.5: 
6.63.1,  etc. 

19  Cf.  Plautus,  Most.  80;  Lucretius  1.157-158:  6.299-300;  Horace, 
Carm.  1.22.2-3;  Epod.  17.2-3,  46-47;  Aeneid  2.4-6,  43-45,  101-102,  337- 
338,  345-347:  6.437,  458-459,  461-462,  697-698;  Bucolics  1.41,  68-70,  82- 
83:  2.56-57:  3.105-108;  7.45-46:  10.16-17;  Juvenal  7.94-95. 


50  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 


nee  mos  ille  sepulturae  remanebit  in  urbe. 
Aeneid  3.408-409 

Hunc  socii  morem  sacrorum,  hunc  ipse  teneto : 

hac  casti  maneant  in  religione  nepotes. 
5.218-219     Sic  Mnestheus,  sic  ipsa  fuga  secat  ultima  Pristis 

aequora,  sic  illam  fert  impetus  ipse  volantem. 
Bucolics  1.22-23 

Sic  canibus  catulos  similis,  sic  matribus  haedos 
noram,  sic  parvis  componere  magna  solebam20. 
Tibullus  1.2.35-36 

neu  strepitu  terrete  pedum,  neu  quaerite  nomen, 

neu  prope  fulgenti  lumina  ferte  face. 

Sometimes  the  regular  procedure  is  reversed,  and  the  second 
monosyllable  carries  the  accent,  while  the  first  and  the  third 
are  unaccented:  Aeneid  3.558-559 

Et  pater  Anchises:  "nimirum  haec  ilia  Charybdis: 
hos  Helenus  scopulos,  haec  saxa  horrenda  canebat". 
Horace,  Carm.  3.3.65-67 

Ter  si  resurgat  murus  aheneus 
auctore  Phoebo,  ter  pereat  meis 

excisus  Argivis,  ter  uxor21. 

In  still  another  variation — less  frequent — the  first  two  in- 
stances of  the  monosyllable  carry  the  ictus  : 
Lucan  7.551 

Hie  furor,  hie  rabies,  hie  sunt  tua  crimina,  Caesar. 
Aeneid  1.751-752 

nunc  quibus  Aurorae  venisset  films  armis, 
nunc  quales  Diomedis  equi,  nunc  quantus  Achilles22. 
Still  another  variation  is  seen  in  Aeneid  2.97-98.     Here  the 
first  monosyllable  carries  the  ictus,  while  the  other  two  are 
unaccented  metrically23 : 

'"Compare  also  Horace,  Carm.  1.32.9-11:  2.16.33-35;  Epp.  1.1.93-95; 
Aeneid  6.137,  144,  479-481;  Juvenal  3.26-27;  Martial  2.18.2-5;  Ausonius, 
Mosella  139-140,  141-142;  Pervig.  Ven.  45;  Statius,  Silvae  1.3.29-30. 

21  Compare  also  Aeneid  2.345-350 :  4.376-377 ;  Bucolics  4.43-48 ;  Lucre- 
tius 5.322-323;  Lucan,  Phar.  3.151-158;  Silius  Italicus  15.580-581;  Sta- 
tius, Silvae  1.658-663;  Horace,  Carm.  4.14.45-47. 

22  Compare  also  Aeneid  2.159-161,  292-294:  6.666-670;  Bucolics  3.109: 
8.44;  Catullus  38.2-3. 

23  Compare  also  Aeneid  2.156-159;   Bucolics  9.40-41;   Horace,   Epod. 
7.2-4;  Epp.   1.1.65-66;   Statius,   Silvae  1.2.148-149. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  51 

Hinc  mihi  prima  mali  labes,  hinc  semper  Ulixes 
criminibus  terrere  novis,  hinc  spargere  voces. 
So  in  Statius,  Silvae  1.2.267 

qui  leges,  qui  castra  regant,  qui  carmina  ludant. 
Another  variation  places  the  ictus  on  the  last  two  monosylla- 
bles, while  the  first  remains  unaccented  metrically.    So  Persius 

6.;8-7924 

rem  duplica.    Feci ;  iam  triplex,  iam  mihi  quarto, 
iam  deciens  redit  in  rugam. 

Finally,  the  first  two  instances  of  the  monosyllable  may  be 
without  the  ictus,  while  the  third  carries  the  metrical  accent. 
Compare  Ovid,  Met.  1.505-506: 

Nympha,  mane !  sic  agna  lupum,  sic  cerva  leonem, 
sic  aquilam  penna  fugiunt  trepidante  columbae25. 
The  treatment  of   four  repeated  monosyllables  varies,  but 
often  the  rule  stated  above  (p.  48)  for  two  repeated  monosylla- 
bles will  apply  here,  as  though  there  were  two  different  pairs. 
This  is  the  case,  for  instance,  in  Varro,     ANQPOXIOIIOAIS     n 
(P-  103) 

Non  fit  thesauris,  non  auro  pectu'  solutum ; 
non  demunt  animis  curas  ac  relligiones 
Persarum  montes,  non  atria  diviti'  Crassi. 
Bucolics  10.29-30 

nee  lacrimis  crudelis  Amor,  nee  gramina  rivis, 
nee  cytiso  saturantur  apes  nee  fronde  capellae26. 
In  Horace,  Carm.  1.31.3-7  the  metrical  accent  falls  on  the  first 
and  the  third  non  (within  lines  3  and  6),  while  the  second  and 
the  fourth  non,  at  the  beginning  of  lines  5  and  7,  are  unac- 
cented 27.    In  Juvenal  7.94-95  only  the  first  of  four  instances  of 
quis  carries  the  ictus.  In  Plautus,  Mostellaria  615  (quid  .  .  .  quid 
.  .  .  quis  . .  .  quid),  the  first  and  fourth  instances  of  the  mono- 
syllable are  without  ictus,  the  second  and  third  are  accented 
metrically,  so  that  we  have  a  kind  of  metrical  chiasmus.     Still 

21  See  also  Horace,  Epod.  5.53;  Martial  2.41.3-5;  Statius,  Silvae  1.5.3- 

4- 

23  Compare  also  Ovid,  Amores  1.15.29-30;  Plautus,  Most.  595. 

26  Compare  pp.  54-55.  See  also  Bucolics  5-76-77 :  6.79-80;  Ovid 
Tristia  3.9-12;  Statius,  Silvae  1.2.56-57. 

"  Compare  Catullus  8.10,13  and  Aeneid  6.458-462.  For  slight  varia- 
tions of  this  type  see  Juvenal  3.190-192  and  Statius,  Silvae  1.3.57-59- 


52  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

another  variation  is  seen  in  Bucolics  3.56-57.     Here  the  third 
nunc  alone  has  metrical  accent : 

et  nunc  omnis  ager,  nunc  omnis  parturit  arbos, 
nunc  frondent  silvae,  nunc  formonsissimus  annus28. 
Where  the  number  of  repeated  monosyllables  goes  beyond  four, 
no  rule  can  be  laid  down.     In  Bucolics  7.65-68,  however,  the 
usual  treatment  of  two  repeated  monosyllables  is  found,  recur- 
ring three  times : 

Fraxinus  in  silvis  pulcherrima,  pinus  in  hortis, 
populus  in  fluviis,  abies  in  montibus  altis: 
saepius  at  si  me,  Lycida  formonse,  revisas, 
fraxinus  in  silvis  cedat  tibi,  pinus  in  hortis. 
A  sharp  contrast  is  Martial  5.58 

Cras  te  victurum,  eras  dicis,  Postume,  semper. 

Die  mihi,  eras  istud,  Postume,  quando  venit? 
Quam  longe  eras  istud  ?  ubi  est  ?  aut  unde  petendum  ? 

Numquid  apud  Parthos  Armeniosque  latet? 
lam  eras  istud  habet  Priami  vel  Nestoris  annos. 

Cras  istud  quanti,  die  mihi,  posset  emi? 
Cras  vives  ?  Hodie  iam  vivere,  Postume,  serum  est : 

ille  sapit,  quisquis,  Postume,  vixit  heri. 
Here  the  metrical  treatment  is  most  skilful:  every  time  eras 
is  the  important  word  it  receives  the  ictus.  In  line  i  it  has 
received  enough  emphasis  from  its  position,  so  that  when  it  is 
repeated  it  occurs  in  the  unaccented  part  of  the  foot.  In  the 
second  line,  eras  is  again  an  important  word,  with  quando,  and 
both  receive  the  ictus.  Longe  is  the  weightiest  word  in  the 
third  line,  and  eras  is  unaccented.  This  treatment  is  followed  all 
the  way  through  the  poem,  and  shows  well  Martial's  cleverness29 
in  his  repetitions  and  his  mastery  of  the  metrical  details30. 
I  quote  now  from  the  Aeneid  two  examples  of  monosyllabic 


28  For  other  variations   see   Ennius,  Annales   111-113,  431  '>    PlautuSj 
Most.  615;  Terence,  Phormio  496;  Bucolics  4.4-10:  7.36-44:   10.42-43; 
Persius  1.36-39;  Martial  11.18.1-3;  Statius,  Silvae  1.1.11-13. 

29  Compare  pp.  33-35. 

80  Compare  also  Juvenal  7.190-194  (p.  36)  ;  Claudian  De  IV  Con. 
Hon.  Aug.  492-501 ;  Terence,  Heaut.  975-977;  Catullus  43-1-4 ;  Aeneid  2. 
150-151;  Horace,  Carm.  4.1.29-32:  4.13.17-20;  A.  P.  307-308;  Ovid,  Met. 
3.402-405;  Persius  3.65-69;  Statius,  Silvae  1.1.79-81:  2.226-227:  6.93-96; 
Lucilius  9;  Ennius,  Scenica  92. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  53 

iteration  with  variant  treatment  where  similar  treatment  would 
have  been  more  effective : 

3.490  sic  oculos,  sic  ille  manus,  sic  ora  ferebat. 

4.548-549     Tu  lacrimis  evicta  meis,  tu  prima  furentem 

his,  germana,  malis  oneras  atque  obicis  hosti31. 
I  turn  now  to  some  examples  of  repeated  monosyllables  which 
receive  identical  treatment.  In  practically  all  cases  emphasis 
or  some  rhetorical  effect  is  gained  or  aided.  Two  methods  are 
to  be  noted.  The  first,  of  which  examples  are  not  very  numer- 
ous, is  the  repetition  of  the  monosyllable  twice  or  three  times  in 
a  single  line  with  the  same  metrical  treatment.  Examples  are 
Aeneid  I.46-4732 

Ast  ego,  quae  divom  incedo  regina,  lovisque 

et  soror  et  coniunx .  .  . 
1.699-700     lam  pater  Aeneas  et  iam  Troiana  iuventus 

conveniunt . . . 
Horace,  Epod.  17.40-41 

tu  pudica,  tu  proba  . . . 

perambulabis  astra  sidus  aureum  . . . 
Martial  1.36.1 

Si,  Lucane,  tibi  vel  si  tibi,  Tulle,  darentur  . . . 
2.43.  i  Koiva  <£i'A.a>v  haec  sunt,  haec  sunt  tua,  Candide,  Koiva33 . 
3-63.13         Quid  narras?  hoc  est  hoc  est  homo,  Cotile,  bellus34? 
11.18.3         Rus  hoc  dicere,  rus  potes  vocare? 
Prudentius,  Hymnus  Omni  Hora  83 

die  tropaeum  passionis,  die  triumphalem  crucem35. 


81  Omitted  in  the  Teubner  text. 

82  Here  the  identical  treatment  in  et — et  emphasizes  the  duality  of 
Juno;  in  the  fact  that  she  is  at  once  the  sister  and  the  wife  of  Jove 
lies  the  bitterness  of  her  inability  to  wreak  vengeance  on  the  Trojans. 
Compare  also  Claudian,  De  IV  Con.  Hon.  Aug.  497-5<>i. 

33  The  emphasis  here,  of  course,  is  on  sunt,  and,  in  the  next  cita- 
tion, on  est. 

84  Here  the  emphasis  is,  I  think,  on  est,  though  hoc  precedes.  The 
sense  is,  'Is  this,  is  this',  etc.  Messrs.  Paley  and  Strong  seem  to  have 
taken  the  same  view,  for  they  translated  by  'Is  this,  and  this  also,  a 
bellus  homo?'.  They  add  by  way  of  comment  on  hoc -hoc  this  re- 
mark: "So  rb<ra  KO!  r6<ra  is  used  of  varied  numbers  or  qualities". 

36  Compare  also  Terence,  Heaut.  322  (note  the  unaccented  vis  in 
line  323)  ;  Martial  9.46.3  (observe  nunc  in  line  2)  ;  Statius,  Silvae 
i. 2.221  (note  huic  in  line  222)  ;  Pervig.  Ven.  33. 


54  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

Horace,  Epp.  2.1.60-61 

Hos  ediscit,  et  hos  arcto  stipata  theatre 
spectat  Roma  potens ;  habet  hos  numeratque  poetas. 
Best  of  all  is  Martial  4.69.4 

nee  puto,  nee  credo,  Papyle,  nee  sitio. 

In  Claudian,  De  IV  Con.  Hon.  Aug.  530-531  we  find  a  very 
unusual  phenomenon — three  unaccented  monosyllables : 

Scis  quo  more  Cydon,  qua  dirigat  arte  sagittas 
Armenius,  refugo  quae  sit  fiducia  Partho36. 
The  second  method  followed  by  the  poets  in  identical  metrical 
treatment  of  monosyllables  is  anaphoraic  repetition,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  two  or  more  consecutive  lines.    Examples  are  Aeneid 
3.566-567 

Ter  scopuli  clamorem  inter  cava  saxa  dedere : 
ter  spumam  elisam  et  rorantia  vidimus  astra. 
Horace,  Carm.  1.5.9-11 

qui  nunc  te  fruitur  credulus  aurea, 
qui  semper  vacuam,  semper  amabilem 
sperat . . . 

4.13.17-20    Quo  fugit  venus,  heu,  quove  color,  decens 
quo  motus?    Quid  habes  illius,  illius 
quae    spirabat   amores, 

quae  me  surpuerat  mihi37. 
Claudian,  De  IV  Con.  Hon.  Aug.  349-351 

Nunc  eques  in  medias  equitum  te  consere  turmas, 
nunc  pedes  assistas  pediti.    Tune  promptius  ibunt 
te  socio,  tune  conspicuus  gratusque  feretur38 .  . . 
This  passage  is  interesting  in  another  way.    There  is  a  double 
anaphora;  again,  nunc — nunc  and  tune — tune  respectively  re- 
ceive identical  metrical  treatment,  but  opposite  treatment  to 
each  other. 

I  quote  now  a  few  instances  of  metrical  treatment  which 
follow  neither  of  the  above  methods.    Occasionally  monosylla- 


86  Compare  Catullus  17.22;  Aeneid  3.608-609;  Horace,  Carm.  4.14.33- 
34;  Silius  Italicus  1.157,  162,  465. 

87  Both  methods  are  here  combined.     But  note  the  quid  of  line  18, 
which  is  unaccented. 

38  Compare  also  Catullus  64.19-21,  39-40,  257-260  (note  the  ac- 
cented pars  in  line  256)  ;  Horace,  Carm.  1.12.57-60.  In  Martial  1.41.7- 
15  quod  occurs  at  the  beginning  of  eight  of  the  nine  lines. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  55 

bles  are  placed  in  corresponding  positions  in  successive  lines, 
but  in  other  places  than  the  first  foot.  Compare  Aeneid 
6.339-340 

exciderat  puppi  mediis  effusus  in  undis. 

Hunc  ubi  vix  multa  maestum  cognovit  in  umbra . . . 
Here  the  instances  of  the  monosyllable,  in  this  case  of  minor 
importance,  are  in  obscure  metrical  positions.  In  Martial 

6-554-5, 

rides  nos  Coracine,  nil  olentis : 
malo,  quam  bene  olere,  nil  olere39, 

nil — nil  are  the  consequential  words :  the  metrical  treatment 
throws  that  out  in  sharp  relief. 

Horace,  Carm.  4.13.10-12  is  worthy  of  note: 
.  . .  et  ref  ugit  te,  quia  luridi 
dentes  te,  quia  rugae 
turpant  et  capitis  nives. 

The  identical  treatment  in  these  lines  adds  signally  to  their 
force40. 

In  the  case  of  a  refrain,  all  the  words,  of  course,  receive 
identical  treatment.  I  quote  now  only  one  example — involving 
a  partial  refrain — to  show  how  effective  the  repetition  of  a 
monosyllable  in  a  refrain  with  identical  treatment  may  be, 
when  the  repeated  lines  are  in  close  proximity: 
Martial  2.18 

Capto  tuam,  pudet  heu,  sed  capto,  Maxime,  cenam, 

tu  captas  aliam:  iam  sumus  ergo  pares. 
Mane  salutatum  venio,  tu  diceris  isse 

ante  salutatum:  iam  sumus  ergo  pares. 
Sum  comes  ipse  tuus  tumidique  anteambulo  regis, 

tu  comes  alterius :  iam  sumus  ergo  pares. 
Esse  sat  est  servum,  iam  nolo  vicarius  esse: 

qui  rex  est,  regem,  Maxime,  non  habeat. 

Metrically  these  lines,  quite  aside  from  the  refrain,  are  very 
interesting,  since  the  poet  combines  most  skillfully  identical 
.and  variant  treatment. 

Before  we  leave  monosyllables,  mention  should  be  made  of 
one  more  type  of  repetition  which  employs  them  very  largely, 
namely,  epizeuxis.  In  this  figure  the  two  instances  of  the 

**  For  a  similar  treatment  cf.  Bucolics  10.29-30.    Line  5  of  the  above 
citation   reminds  us  of   Plautus,   Most.  273. 
"See  also  Catullus  56.1-4:61.116-118;  Horace,  Carm.  1.8.5-8. 


56  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

monosyllable  are  found  most  frequently  at  the  beginning  of  the 
lines.     Variant  metrical  treatment  is  here,  of  course,  almost 
inevitable  (unless  the  second  monosyllable  is  elided)41. 
Horace,  Carm.  1.15.9-10 

Heu  heu,  quantus  equis,  quantus  adest  viris 

sudor42 ! 

Epod.  2.6843 

iam  iam  futurus  rusticus. 
4.20  hoc,  hoc  tribuno  militum? 

5-53~54         Nunc,  nunc  adeste  . . . 
7.1  Qu°>  quo  scelesti  ruitis? 

Seneca,  Medea  990 

Iam  iam  recepi  sceptra,  germanum,  patrem. 
Persius  2.50 

iam  dabitur,  iam  iam !  donee  deceptus  et  exspes44  . . , 
We  may  examine  next  the  metrical  treatment  of  certain 
adverbs,  such  as  semper,  simul,  unde,  modo,  iterum,  illic,  saepe, 
etc.  Most  of  these  adverbs  are  naturally  emphatic  if  repeated 
at  all,  and  hence  when  repeated  naturally  receive  identical 
treatment45. 
Ennius,  Annales  91-92 

Et  simul  ex  alto  longe  pulcherrima  praepes 

laeva  volavit  avis.     Simul  aureus  exoritur  sol. 
Horace,  Carm.  2.9.1,9,17 

Non  semper  imbres  nubibus  hispidos 


tu  semper  urgues  flebilibus  modis 
flevere  semper46 : . . . 


41  This  type  of  repetition  is  found  more  frequently  in  the  Epodes  of 
Horace  than  in  the  works  of  any  other  Latin  poet.  See  above,  p. 
24. 

41  The  Teubner  text  reads  eheu. 

43  Compare  p.  24. 

44  Compare  also  Catullus  6373 :64.iQ5 ;  Aeneid  2.701 14.371 ;   Bucolics 
2.58;  Seneca,  Medea  13;  Persius  3.23:6.67;  Statius,  Silvae  1.6.96;  Pru 
dentius,  Hymnus  Matutinus  33. 

45  In  some  cases,  too,  e.g.  undique,  iterum,  only  identical  treatment  is 
possible  (see  page  57). 

48  usque,  4,  omnis,  6,  omnis,  14,  in  which  there  is  coincidence  of  ictu* 
and  word-accent,  enhance  the  effect  of  the  triple  semper. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  57 

Aeneid  2.510,515 

circumdat  nequiquam  umeris,  et  inutile  ferrum 

Hie  Hecuba  et  natae  nequiquam  altaria  circum47. 
3.185  et  saepe  Hesperiam,  saepe  Itala  regna  vocare. 

3.193  adparent  terrae,  caelum  undique  et  undique  pontus. 

3.436  praedicam,      et     repetens      iterumque      iterumque 

monebo. 

Examples   of   variant   treatment   of   adverbs   where   identical 
treatment  would  have  been  more  effective  are  Aeneid  2.108-111 
Saepe  fugam  Danai  Troia  cupiere  relicta 
moliri  et  longo  fessi  discedere  bello 
( f ecissentque  utinam!),  saepe  illos  aspera  ponti 
interclusit  hiems  . . . 
Horace,  Carm.  1.5.9-11 

qui  nunc  te  fruitur  credulus  aurea, 
qui  semper  vacuam,  semper48  amabilem 
sperat49. .. 

An  unusual  example  of  the  conjunction  neque  thrice  re- 
peated within  a  single  line  with  identical  treatment  (each  in- 
stance carries  the  ictus)  occurs  in  Plautus,  Most.  264. 

neque  cerussam  neque  Melinum  neque  aliam  ullam 

offuciam. 

Philematium  had  said  Cedo  cerussam :  Scapha  replies,  'I  won't, 
I  won't,  I  won't'. 

47  For  other  instances  of  the  repetition  of  the  above  adverbs   and 
others,  with  identical  treatment,  see  Plautus,  Most.  484-491 ;  Lucilius 
1220-1221;    Lucretius    3.445-446;    Horace,    Carm.    1.15.    13-16;    Serm. 
I-3-9-I3    (saepe   and    modo*),    10.71-72:2.4.60-61,   8.116;    Epp.    1.1.24-25; 
Ovid,  Fasti  2.85-87;  Met.  1.481-482;  Tristia  I.3-5I-53,  57-59;  Propertius 
1.3.21-23:3.15.13-15;   Martial   1.79.1-2;   Statius,   Silvae   1.2.22;   Claudian, 
De  Raptu  Pros.  1.191-192;  Pervig.  Ven.  89-90;  Aeneid  2.368-369,  636, 
756,  770:478-79,  351-352,  466-467,  531-534,  566-567:6.39-44,  258,  716-722; 
Bucolics  1.16-21 :3.50-53  .-5. 16-17:6.29-30:8.97-98. 

48  Identical  treatment  would  here  have  been  more  effective.     Still,  it 
would  have  been  impossible  to  give  semper-semper  identical  metrical 
treatment  while  clinging  to  the  effective  anaphora  in  qui-qui;  otherwise 
semper  qui  vacuam,  semper  amabilem  might  have  been  written. 

49  Compare  also,  for  variant  and  combined  treatment,  Ennius,  Scenica 
240;   Plautus,   Most   615;   Lucretius  6.2-6;   Catullus  63.12-13;   Aeneid 
1.743:2.299-303,  458-461:4.413:6.93-94,  869-877;  Bucolics  1.28-30:2.16-19: 
8.23:9.11-17,  55-62;  Horace,  Serm.  1.3.7-8;  Ovid,  Heroides  10.109-110; 
Seneca,  Medea  139;  Juvenal  1.150-151;  Propertius  2.3.17-19. 


58  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

In  Ovid,  Met.  6.245-247,  where  simul  occurs  four  timesr 
Ingemuere  simul,  simul  incurvata  dolore 
membra  solo  posuere ;  simul  suprema  iacentes 
lumina  versarunt,  animam  simul  exhalarunt50, 
identical  and  variant  treatment  are  combined  with  great  skill. 
The  first  and  the  third  simul  coincide  in  metrical  value,  and  the 
second  and  fourth  receive  similar  treatment.     An  example  il- 
lustrating the  usual  treatment  of  repeated  etiam  is  Catullus 
63.61 

Miser   a   miser,   querendumst   etiam   atque   etiamr 

anime51. 

I  cite  now  some  examples  of  the  repetition  of  the  intensive 
pronoun  ipset  in  the  nominative  singular,  masculine  or  femin- 
ine. It  almost  always  receives  identical  metrical  treatment,, 
both  because  it  is  emphatic  by  nature,  and  because  (especially 
in  hexameter)  only  one  treatment  is  possible,  unless  there  be 
elision  (the  plural  forms,  of  course,  may  be  handled  with  more 
freedom).  Catullus  62.60-61 

non  aequomst  pugnare,  pater  cui  tradidit  ipse, 
ipse  pater  cum  matre,  quibus  parere  necessest. 
64.26-27       Thessaliae  columen  Peleu,  cui  luppiter  ipse, 

ipse  suos  divom  genitor  concessit  amores. 
Aeneid  5.176 

ipse  gubernaclo  rector  subit,  ipse  magister52. 
Idem  and  iste  are  repeated  very  rarely.  Ille  usually  receives 
identical  treatment  (the  considerations  noted  above  in  connec- 
tion with  the  nominative  singular  of  ipse  apply  to  the  nominative- 
singular  of  ille,  but  not  to  all  the  other  case  forms).  An  ex- 
ample is  Catullus  58.  i -353.  In  Catullus  62.42,  44, 

Multi  ilium  pueri,  multae  optavere  puellae: 

50  For  the  treatment  of  the  perfects  here  see  p.  68. 

"Compare  also  Ennius,  Scenica  217-218;  Aeneid  4.305-309;  Bucolics- 
4.58-59:10.13-14.  But  see  also  Aeneid  6.485  and  Bucolics  2.8-9. 

"Compare  also  Martial  8.50.20;  Pervig.  Ven.  13-15,  40-41,  77-79; 
Aeneid  2.409-502,  518-522,  617-618,  753-755:4-268-273,  356-358,  601-606:5.- 
218-219 16.185-191 ;  Bucolics  1.9-12 12.62-63  14.21-23,  38-43  :5-35  :8.92-96 ; 
Catullus  62.69-70;  Juvenal  8.147-148.  For  identical  and  variant  treat- 
ment combined  see  e.g.  Bucolics  1.39-40:5.62-64. 

63  Compare  also  Lucilius  369-370;  Lucretius  3.1091-1093;  Ovid,  Fasti 
4.91-92,  95-97;  Seneca,  Medea  500;  Martial  8.24.6;  Tibullus  1.2.17-21;. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  59 


ntilli  ilium  pueri,  nullae  optavere  puellae, 
though  variant  metrical  treatment  is  possible,  we  have  never- 
theless identical  treatment.     Two  examples   follow  in  which 
there  is  variant  treatment  of  idem  and  illam: 
Aeneid  3.503-504  quibus  idem  Dardanus  auctor 

atque  idem  casus  . . . 
Propertius  2.3.43 

sive  illam  Hesperiis,  sive  illam  ostendet  Eois54. 
There  is  not  space  to  take  up  the  personal  pronouns  in  de- 
tail.    As  a  rule,  they,  too,   follow  the  general  principle  laid 
down  on  page  44. 

Adjectives  next  claim  our  attention.  Many  of  the  poets  ex- 
hibit great  skill  in  the  manipulation  of  them,  and  we  find  that 
the  rule  given  on  page  44  still  holds  good,  with  but  few 
exceptions.  Examples  of  variant  treatment  of  adjectives  are 
Aeneid  1.657 

At  Cytherea  novas  artes,  nova  pectore  versat55. 
3.310  'Verane  te  facies,  verus  mihi  nuntius  adfers  . .  ,'55 

5.118  ingentemque  Gyas  ingenti  mole  Chimaeram. 

5.136-137     Considunt  transtris,  intentaque  bracchia  remis; 

intenti  expectant  signum  . .  ,55 
Juvenal  5.133-134  quantus 

ex  nihilo,  quantus  fieres  Virronis  amicus! 
11.63  alter  aquis,  alter  flammis  ad  sidera  missus56. 

Juvenal  10.196-197;  Aeneid  2.274-278:4.28-29:6.469-473,  836-838:7.69-70; 
Bucolics  1.7-9  -3-43-47 :4-i5~i6 :8.49-50 : 10.13- 14. 

M  Compare  also  for  variant  and  combined  treatment,  Ennius,  Scenica 
270-272;  Aeneid  4.238-245:6.320-326,  479-482,  512-517;  Bucolics  3.61:6. 
67-70,  79-84:7.17-23:8.19-23:10.54-64;  Martial  5.58.2-6.  For  variant  and 
combined  treatment  of  ipse,  see  also  Aeneid  4.141,  147;  Bucolics  1.34- 
40:5.62-64:7.7-11 :8.io6-io8:io.63. 

55  In  all  these  cases,  to  be  sure,  and  in  a  large  number  of  similar 
examples  (see  footnotes  56  and  57  below,  on  pages  59  and  60),  if 
the  poet  was  determined  to  use  in  each  case  the  particular  forms  of 
the  individual  word  which  he  did  in  fact  repeat,  only  variant  treat- 
ment was  possible. 

MFor  other  examples  of  the  variant  treatment  of  adjectives  see 
Ennius,  Annales  287-288;  Plautus,  Most.  13;  Catullus  45.21-23:62.42-44, 
53-55;  Lucretius  2.1-2:3.898;  Aeneid  2.397-398,  458-463,  674-677,  703  .-3, 
494:4.90-92,  308-311,  657,  658-662:6.442-446,  665-667;  Bucolics  1.51-54:3- 
59:4.39:5.44:10.39,  75-76;  Horace,  Carm.  1.32.11;  Persius  1.87;  Silius- 
Italicus  1.393;  Ausonius,  Mosella  431. 


60  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

We  may  note  now  examples  of  the  repetition  of  adjectives 
with  variant  treatment,  where  similar  treatment  would  have 
been  more  effective:  Plautus,  Most.  181 

PH.  Ego  verum  amo :  verum  volo  dici  mihi :  men- 

dacem  odi. 

Aeneid  4.3-4  Multa  viri  virtus  animo,  multusque  recursat 
gentis  honos57. 

Examples  showing  the  triple  occurrence  of  an  adjective  are 

Catullus  78.3-4 

Callus  homost  bellus :  nam  dulces  iungit  amores, 
cum  puero  ut  bello  bella  puella  cubet. 

Here,  however,  if  the  poet  was  determined  on  the  juxtaposition 

of  bello  and  bella,  only  variant  treatment  was  possible. 

Quintus  Cicero,  Epigram  2  (quoted  by  Cruttwell,  History  of 

Roman  Literature,  p.  186)  : 

Femina  nulla  bona  est,  et,  si  bona  contigil  ulla, 
nescio  quo  fato  res  mala  facta  bona58. 

Silius  Italicus  1.656-657 

Omnis  Hiber,  omnis  rapidis  fera  Gallia  turmis, 
omnis  ad  aestifero  sitiens  Libyo  imminet  axe. 

Harmony  and  variety  are  secured  in  these  lines  by  means  of  the 

combined    identical    and    variant    treatment.      The    treatment 

corresponds,  it  may  be  noted,  to  the  normal  treatment  of  triple 

monosyllables  (p49). 

Statius,  Silvae  1.2.233-234 

omnis  honos,  cuncti  veniunt  ad  limiria  fasces; 
omnis  plebeio  teritur  praetexta  tumultu. 

Cuncti  in  this  passage  corresponds  essentially  to  the  second 

omnis  in  the  preceding  quotation,  and  the  metrical  treatment 

of  the  three  numerical  words  in  the  two  passages  is  thus  the 

same. 

Juvenal  7.189-194 exempla  novorum 

fatorum  transi.     Felix  et  pulcher  et  acer, 
felix  et  sapiens  et  nobilis  et  generosus, 
appositam  nigrae  lunam  subtexit  alutae; 

"Cf.  also  Aeneid  3435:6.692-693;  Persius  1.53-55:6.68;  Ovid,  Met.;. 
198;  Silius  Italicus  1.242-243,  etc. 

68  Observe  that  there  are  in  fact  three  separate  treatments  of  the  ad- 
jective in  this  passage.  Still  the  first  and  third  examples  of  the  word 
have  virtually  identical  treatment. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  61 

felix  orator  quoque  maximus  et  iaculator, 

et,  si  perfrixit,  cantat  bene  .  . . 

Here  the  treatment  of  the  triple  felix  is  like  that  of  the  triple 
monosyllables  in  Aeneid  2.97-98,  Statins,  Silvae  1.2.267,  dis- 
cussed on  pages  50-51. 
8.213-214    cuius  supplicio  non  debuit  ima  parari 

simia  nee  serpens  unus  nee  culleus  unus59. 
Lucretius  1.66-67,  71  may  n°w  be  quoted60.     The  change  in 
treatment  from  primum,  an  adverb,  to  primusque  -  primus,  ad- 
jectives, is  noteworthy: 

primum  Graius  homo  mortalis  tollere  contra 

est  oculos  ausus  primusque  obsistere  contra, 

naturae  primus  portarum  claustra  cupiret. 
Martial  2.7  is  remarkable  for  the  varieties  of  treatment  of 
the  forms  of  the  adjective  bellus  and  the  adverb  belle: 
Declamas  belle,  causas  agis,  Attice,  belle, 
historias  bellas,  carmina  bella  facis, 
componis  belle  mimos,  epigrammata  belle, 

bellus  grammaticus,  bellus  es  astrologus, 
et  belle  cantas  et  saltas,  Attice,  belle, 

bellus  es  arte  lyrae,. bellus  es  arte  pilae. 
Nil  bene  cum  facias,  facias  tamen  omnia  belle, 

vis  dicam  quid  sis  ?  magnus  es  ardalio61. 
Examples  of  identical  metrical  treatment  of  adjectives  are 
found  in  all  the  poets  in  much  larger  number  than  those  of 
variant  treatment.    It  will  not  be  necessary  to  specify  in  each 
case  the  particular  effect  gained  through  repetition,  since  I 
shall  endeavor  to  use  examples  which  shall  be  self-explana- 
tory. 
Catullus  82 

Quinti,  si  tibi  vis  oculos  debere  Catullum 

aut  aliud  si  quid  carius  est  oculis, 
eripere  ei  noli  multo  quod  carius  illi 

est  oculis  seu  quid  carius  est  oculis. 


59  See  page  60,  note  58. 

60  See  above,  pp.  14-15,  and  page  15,  note  20. 

61  For  other  instances  of  combined  treatment  compare  Lucretius  5-9QiJ 
993;   Plautus,   Most.  254-255;    Catullus  78:   87;   Propertius  4.13.48-50; 
Aeneid  2.189-192,  670-679,  709-716,  728-730:4.138-139:6.105-117,  618-627, 
787-789;  Bucolics  543-52. 


62  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

112  Multus  homo  es,  Naso,  neque  tecum  multus  homo 

qui 

descendit:  Naso,  multus  es  et  pathicus. 
Vergil,  Aeneid  1.221-222 

nunc  Amyci  casum  gemit  et  crudelia  secum 

fata  Lyci,  fortemque  Cyan  fortemque  Cloanthum. 
5.186-187     nee  tota  tamen  ille  prior  praeeunte  carina, 

parte  prior ; .  . . 
6- 1 33-1 34     Quod  si  tantus  amor  menti,  si  tanta  cupido 

bis  Stygios  innare  lacus  . . . 
Bucolics  3.56 

et  nunc  omnis  ager,  nunc  omnis  parturit  arbos. 
Horace,  Carm.  1.15.9-10 

Heu  heu,  quantus  equis,  quantus  adest  viris 
sudor !     Quanta  moves  funera  . . . 

Ovid,  Met.  13.301  Me  pia  detinuit  coniunx,  pia  mater  Achillem. 
Martial  2.19 

Felicem  fieri  credis  me,  Zoile,  cena? 
felicem  cena,  Zoile,  deinde  ttia? 
Debet  Aricino  conviva  recumbere  clivo, 

quern   tua    felicem,   Zoile,    cena    facit. 
2.58  Pexatus  pulchre  rides,  mea  Zoile,  trita. 

Sunt  haec  trita  quidem,  Zoile,  sed  mea  sunt. 
12.39  Odi  te,  quia  bellus  es,  Sabelle: 

res  est  putida  bellus  et  Sabellus ; 
bellum  denique  malo  quam  Sabellum. 
Tabescas  utinam,  Sabelle,  belle62. 


82  It  should  be  noted  that,  in  many  cases,  unless  there  be  elision, 
identical  treatment  is  unavoidable,  where  the  poet  repeats  an  adjective 
without  change  of  form  (cf.  page  59,  note  55).  Other  examples  be- 
side those  to  be  found  on  pages  61-62  are  Ennius,  Annales  187-189; 
Lucilius  iio-in,  132,  485-489;  Catullus  42.11-12:62.15,  73-74:64.403-404; 
Aeneid  3-31-33,  412  :4-39O-395,  433-437:6.46-53,  372,  656-664,  74<>-74i: 
893-895;  Bucolics  1.76-81:4.34,  60-62:5.46:7.55-59:9.4-9,  5-10;  Horace,  A. 
P.  175-176;  Ovid,  Heroides  10.94;  Met.  5.341-343:13.301;  Rem.  Am. 
265-267;  Propertius  4.9.67-68;  Persius  6.52-54;  Juvenal  7-I34-I35;  Per- 
vig.  Ven.  32-35 ;  Ausonius,  Mosella  426 ;  Claudian,  In  Rufinum  II  26- 
28.  Instances  of  inevitable  identical  treatment  with  slight  changes  in 
the  repetend  are  Lucilius  995;  Lucretius  2.54-55;  Catullus  56.1-4; 
Aeneid  2.389-392:3.159-160:6.418-422,  576-582;  Martial  1.109.19-20:11.92; 
Juvenal  8.270-271.  For  examples  of  adjectives  to  which  the  poets  have 
given  identical  treatment  deliberately,  see  Ennius,  Scenica  260-261 ; 
Plautus,  Most.  186;  Catullus  49.5-7:64.334-335;  Horace,  Serm.  1.6.54-56: 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  63 

We  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  material  treatment 
of  verbs.  It  is  interesting  that,  according  to  my  collections, 
in  Vergil  nouns  are  repeated  far  more  often  than  any  other 
class  of  words,  while  in  the  other  poets  verbs  constitute  the  re- 
petend  in  the  majority  of  cases.  The  predominance  of  in- 
stances of  identical  treatment  in  verbs  in  all  the  poets  is  no- 
ticeable; a  verb,  if  repeated  at  all,  is  inherently  emphatic,  and 
its  repetition  therefore  tends  more  strongly  to  produce  a 
special  effect  of  some  sort  than  does  the  iteration  of  any  other 
word  in  a  sentence63.  That  the  same  is  true  of  a  great  many 
adverbs  was  pointed  out  on  page  56.  In  many  cases,  also, 
the  metrical  structure  of  the  verb  form  compels  identical 
treatment,  if  there  is  to  be  repetition  at  all.  But  examples  of 
variant  treatment  are  to  be  found  in  considerable  numbers.  In 
some  cases  verbs  receive  variant  treatment  obviously  that  an 
effect  of  variety  may  be  produced  or  some  rhetorical  figure 
may  be  worked  out.  The  first  passage  I  shall  cite  illustrates 
this  point:  see  Catullus  94.1 

Mentula  moechatur.     Moechatur  mentula  certe. 
Here,  if  the  chiasmus  is  to  be  secured,  variant  treatment  is  in- 
evitable.    Other  examples  of  variant  treatment  are 
Lucilius  6.244 

. .  .  quidquid  habet  nummorum,  secum  habet  ipse. 
Aeneid  5.80-81 

Salve,  sancte  parens:  iterum  salvete,  recepti 

nequiquam  cineres  . . . 
Martial  3.61 

Esse  nihil  dicis  quidquid  petis,  improbe  Cinna: 
si  nil,  Cinna,  petis,  nil  tibi,  Cinna,  nego. 

A.P.37;  Lucilius  218,  839-840;  Lucretius  4.1259  (crassis)  :  6.777-781; 
Aeneid  1.408,  599:2.204-208,  667,  750:4.169.  219-227,  286-298,  398-401* 
429-435:5.46-53,  320:6.43,  137-144,  308-310,  352-354,  417-423,  594-597, 
599-603,  736-739,  748-754,  819-824,  828-829  7.64-70 ;  Bucolics  448-49 :5-2O- 
23,  86-90:6.47-52,  62-68:7.4,  18-19:8.48-50,  58-63  (cf.  Lucilius  218)  ;  Ovid, 
Heroides  111-115;  Met.  2.284;  Lucan,  Phar.  1.510-513:2.212-216,  677- 
680;  Propertius  1.3.1-3;  Tibullus  4.1.19-20;  Persius  i.m;  Juvenal  7.84- 
85:12.111;  Martial  1.9.1-2:4.75.1:3.63.13-14:10.35.1-4,  11-12;  Silius  Itali- 
cus  1.343-344;  Ausonius,  Mosella  258-265;  Prudentius,  Hymnus  ante 
Sompnum  6. 

63  This  would  seem  to  be  especially  true  of  Latin,  one  special  source 
of  whose  strength  is  the  verb. 


64  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

8.24.5-6        Qui  fingit  sacros  auro  vel  marmore  vultus, 
non  facit  ille  deos :  qui  rogat,  ille  facit. 
In  Martial  2.5.7-8  three  different  verbs  are  repeated,  two 
with  identical  and  one  with  variant  treatment: 

Te  tamen  ut  videam,  duo  millia  non  piget  ire : 

ut  te  non  videam,  quattuor  ire  piget. 

In  1.79  the  repetition  is  extremely  interesting,  for  a  study  of 
the  effectiveness  of  combined  treatment  (in  agis  -  agas,  est  - 
est,  desunt  -  desit)  : 

Semper  agis  causas  et  res  agis,  Attale,  semper ; 
est,  non  est  quod  agas :  Attale,  semper  agis. 
Si  res  et  causae  desunt,  agis,  Attale,  mulas. 

Attale,  ne  quod  agas  desit,  agas  animam64. 
We  turn  now  to  consider  instances  of  the  identical  metrical 
treatment  of  verbs.  I  find  that,  out  of  a  great  number  of  ex- 
amples from  all  the  poets,  about  half  receive  identical  treat- 
ment because  no  other  was  possible  (except  through  elision)  : 
reference  may  be  made  again  to  page  44. 


MFor  examples  of  variant  or  combined  treatment  of  verbs  where  a 
similar  treatment  would  have  been  more  effective,  see  Aeneid  2.306:3. 
470,  603:6.617:7.41-42;  Terence,  Phormio  286-287;  Lucretius  6.299-300; 
Catullus  9.3-5;  Horace,  Carm.  2.17.10:4.2.14-15,  4.70;  Ovid,  Met.  1.514; 
Seneca,  Medea  13-16,  845;  Persius  1.53-54:  2.68:  5-I32-I33;  Juvenal 
8.171-172:10.188;  Statius,  Silvae  1.2.33-34.  It  should  be  noted,  how- 
ever, that  in  some  of  these  examples  identical  treatment  was  impossi- 
ble because  of  a  change  of  form  in  the  repetend.  For  instances  of 
varied  treatment  in  general  (to  many  of  which  the  point  just  made 
applies),  compare  Aeneid  2.74-76,  347-35O,  555-56i  :4-i73-i75,  381-384: 
5.231:6.191-201,  421-422,  454,  490-495,  622,  653-655:7.54-55;  Bucolics  3.49- 
50:4.1-3,  6:6.55-59,  69-72,  83-86:8.5-8:10.16-17,  24-26;  Ennius,  Annales 
359,  429;  Scenica,  240;  Plautus,  Most.  595,  778;  Lucilius  27-28,  33; 
Lucretius  2.1022;  Catullus  61.204:94.1:110.4-5;  Horace,  Epp.  1.1.94-96: 
2.1.46;  Ovid,  Heroides  5.30-31;  Lucan,  Phar.  5-793-796";  Seneca,  Medea 
25,  32,  199-200,  423,  560-561 ;  Propertius  2.8.7-8 ;  Persius  5.66 ;  Juvenal 
3.190:7.90,223.  For  examples  of  combined  treatment,  see  Aeneid  4.246- 
256,  290-299,  431-437,  654-655:6.697-700;  Bucolics  8.77-78:10.19-21;  En- 
nius, Annales  493;  Plautus,  Most.  59,  303-305,  455-462,  553-555;  Luci- 
lius 369-370,  1284-1286;  Terence,  Phormio  206-208;  Heaut.  322-324,  924- 
925;  Varro,  Eumenides  XXVI-XXVII ;  Ovid,  Met.  1.498-500;  Seneca, 
Medea  447-450,  911-913;  Persius  1.27;  Statius,  Silvae  1.3.83-88;  Martial 
1.32.1-2:9.88.1-3. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  65 

Aeneid  2.143-144 

intemerata  fides,  oro,  miserere  laborum 

tantorum,  miserere  animi  non  digna  ferentis. 
2.702  Di  patrii,  servate  domum,  servate  nepotem. 

3.639  Sed  fugite,  o  miseri,  fugite,  atque  ab  litore  funem. 

4.659-660     Dixit,  et  os  impressa  toro,  "moriemur  inultae, 

sed  moriamur"  ait ... 
Bucolics  3.85-86 

Pierides,  vitulam  lectori  pascite  vestro. 

Pollio  et  ipse  facit  nova  carmina :  pascite  taurum. 
4.50,52         Aspice  convexo  nutantem  pondere  mundum, 

Aspice,  venturo  laetentur  ut  omnia  saeclo! 
8.68,  72,  76,  etc. 

Ducite    ab    urbe    domum,    mea    carmina,    ducite 

Daphnim. 
Catullus  64.327,  333,  337,  etc. 

Currite  ducentes  subtegmina,  currite,  fusi. 
Horace,  A.  P.  269 

nocturna  versate  manu,  versate  diurna. 
Lucan,   Phar.   10.312,  314 

qua  dirimunt  Arabum  populis  Aegyptia  rura 

qua  dirimunt  nostrum  rubro  commercia  ponto. 
Juvenal  10.8 

. . .  nocitura  toga,  nocitura  petuntur. 
Statius,  Silvae  1.4.123-124 

Nectite  nunc  laetae  candentia  fila,  sorores, 

nectite !  nemo  modum  transmissi  computet  aevi. 
Pervigilium  Veneris  I,  8,  36,  etc. 

Cras  amet  qui  numquam  amavit  quique  amavit  eras 

amet. 
Claudian,  In  Eutropium  II  Praef.  59 

Emeritum  suspende  sagum,  suspende  pharetram. 
Prudentius,  Hymnus  Omni  Hora  82 

Solve   vocem  mens   sonoram,   solve  linguam   mo- 
bilem65. 

w  For  other  examples  see  Aeneid  2.325,  498-499,  753-754 :4-65-6p,  312- 
313,  419-420:6.186-193,  477-485,  509-512,  669-677;  Bucolics  1.75:2.63-64: 
4.24-25,  60-62:5.10-12:6.5-6,  14-16,  55-56:7.44:8.8-9,  61,  108:9.7-11,  61-67, 


66  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

I  cite  now  some  examples  of  the  repetition  of  verbs  with 
deliberate  identical  treatment.     In  practically  every  case  some 
distinct  effect  is  gained  or  at  least  aided  by  the  repetition  of 
the  verb. 
Aeneid  1.421-422 

Miratur  molem  Aeneas,  magalia  quondam, 
miratur  portas  strepitumque  et  strata  viarum66. 
2.483-484     Apparet  domus  intus,  et  atria  longa  patescunt; 

apparent  Priami  et  veterum  penetralia  regum67. 
2.560-562  subiit  cari  genitoris  imago, 


vitam  exhalantem;  subiit  deserta  Creusa. 
3.623,  626    Vidi  egomet,  duo  de  numero  cum  corpora  nostro 

limina;  vidi  atro  cum  membra  fluentia  tabo68. 
6.51-52  "Cessas  in  vota  precesque, 

Tros"  ait  "Aenea  ?  Cessas  ?" 

6.546  I  decus,  i,  nostrum ;  melioribus  utere  fads ! 

Bucolics  3.104,106 

Die,  quibus  in  terris — et  eris  mihi  magnus  Apoll 

Die,  quibus  in  terris  inscripti  nomina  regum. 
Plautus,  Most.  7-8 

An  ruri  censes  te  esse?    Abscede  ab  aedibus. 
Abi  rus :  abi  dierecte.    Abscede  ab  aedibus69. 


64-65:10.77;  Plautus,  Most.  273;  Lucilius  184-185;  Catullus  42.11-12:92. 
2-4;  Horace,  Carm.  2.3.17-19,  19.7-8:4.2.33-41;  Epod.  17.7;  Ovid,  Fasti 
1.67-69;  Lucan,  Phar.  7.512-514:9.953-954;  Seneca,  Medea  828-829; 
Tibullus  2.6.52;  Persius  3.88-89:6.68;  Juvenal  7.184-185,  197-198;  Silius 
Italictis  1.568-571:17.652-653:  Martial  1.32,  33.4:2.5.7-8,  7.7;  Pervig. 
Ven.  89-92. 

M  The  repetition  here  lays  stress  on  the  recurrence  of  the  feeling  of 
astonishment.  In  1.709,  mirantur  dona  Aeneae,  mirantur  lulum,  the 
nouns  which  represent  the  various  objects  of  the  Tyrian's  astonish- 
ment are  of  prime  importance;  the  variant  treatment,  then,  of  both 
verb  and  nouns  is  effective. 

"The  repetition  here  gives  the  effect  of  a  strong  ecce  .  .  .  ecce,  or 
en  .  .  .  en. 

68  Here  the  identity  extends  even  to  the  elision  in  both  verses  of  the 
final  syllable  of  vidi. 

69  Here,  if  we  take  dierecte  as  a  quadrisyllable,  with  each  syllable  long, 
we  get  identical  treatment  also  in  abi-abi.    Further,  rus  and  dierecte, 
the  important  words,  will  then  be  brought  out  most  sharply  by  the 
ictuses  they  carry;  to  the  city  slave  going  to  the  country  and  going  to 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  67 

Catullus  8.11-12,   19 

Sed   obstinata   mente   perfer,  obdura. 
Vale,  puella.     lam  Catullus  obdurat, 


at  tu,  Catulle,  destinatus  obdura70. 
Horace,  Carm.  2.4.4-5     •  •  •  movit  Achillem, 

movit  Aiacem  Telamone  natum. 
Ovid,  Rem.  Am.  265,  267 

Omnia  fecisti,  ne  callidus  hospes  abiret: 

omnia  fecisti,  ne  te  ferus  ureret  ignis. 
Seneca,  Medea  140-141     ...  Si  potest,  vivat  meus, 

ut  fuit  lason ;  si  minus,  vivat  tamen. 
Persius  3.41-42 

purpureas  subter  cervices  terruit,  imus, 

imus  praecipites,  quam  si  sibi  dicat  et  intus 
Martial  12.80.1 

Ne  laudet  dignos,  laudat  Callistratus  omnes. 
Prudentius,  Hymnus  Omni  Hora  22-23 

Psallat  altitudo  caeli,  psallant  omnes  angeli, 

quidquid  est  virtutis  usquam,  psallat  in  laudem 

Dei71. 

We  may  observe  now  some  variations  in  the  treatment  of  the 
perfect  indicative  active,  third  plural.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in 
hexameters  only  one  treatment  of  perfects  in  -ere  preceded  by 


the  devil  are  expressions  for  the  one  idea.  For  the  scansion  of  dierecte 
here  adopted  see  e.g.  Sonnenschein  ad  loc.  (first  edition).  This  ex- 
ample is  but  one  of  many  where  the  principles  laid  down  in  this 
chapter  have  important  bearing  on  interpretation  or  on  the  determina- 
tion of  the  text  (see  e.  g.  page  76,  note  90). 

70  This  verbal  antistrophe  is  unusual. 

"Compare  also  Aeneid  2.80,  105-114:4.83,  438,  590-593,  669-674,  678- 
680:6.36-40,  46-53,  122-123,  342-348;  Bucolics  3.21-23:6.61-64:9.39-43: 
10.28-31,  31-41,  50-59;  Ennius,  Scenica  28;  Plautus,  Most.  1-5,  329, 
489-491,  671-672,  1028-1029;  Lucilius  203-205,  486-488,  729-730,  839-840, 
1015-1016;  Terence,  Phormio  352-353,  414-415;  Catullus  52.1-4:61.210- 
211 ;  Horace,  Carm.  1.19.5-7;  Epod.  6.11-12;  Epp.  2.2.37-40;  Ovid,  Met. 
1.481-482;  Rem.  Am.  257-258;  Seneca,  Medea  272-273,  505-506;  Pro- 
pertius  3.25.41-44;  Tibullus  3.6.19-21:4.2.11-12;  Lucan,  Phar.  7.197-203:8. 
194-196;  Persius  2.49:5.84-87;  Juvenal  5.112-113:7.50-51:10.173-176:13. 
33-34;  Silius  Italicus  1.465:3.116:10.515;  Pervig.  Ven.  38-41;  Martial 
Lib.  Ep.  29.1:1.109.22-23:1.76:2.38.1-2:7.43.1-4:9.97.1-11:10.35.1-4,  11-12 


68  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

two  long  syllables  or  by  two  short  syllables  is  possible.     Such 
treatment  may  be  seen  to  good  advantage  in  Catullus  62.42,44 
multi  ilium  pueri,  multae  optavere  puellae : 

nulli   ilium   pueri,   nullae    optavere   puellae72. 
62-53~55       hanc  nulli  agricolae,  nulli  coluere  bubulci 


multi  ilium  agricolae,  multi  coluere  bubulci. 
Claudian,  In  Eutropium  II  Praef.  47-48 

Vive  pudor  fatis !  En  quern  tremuere  tot  urbes ! 

en  cuius  populi  sustinuere  iugum ! 

Perfects  in  -arunt,  -erunt  may  be  handled  with  more  free- 
dom. So  in  Ovid,  Met.  6.245-247,  though  ingemuere  and 
posuere  are  of  necessity  treated  identically,  there  is  variant 
treatment  of  versarunt  and  exhalarunt : 

ingemuere  simul,  simul  incurvata  dolore 
membra  solo  posuere ;  simul  suprema  iacentes 
lumina  versarunt,  animam   simul  exhalarunt. 
To  Catullus  62.28,  quae  pepigere  viri,  pepigerunt  ante  parentes, 
and  Vergil,  Bucolics  10.13  ff.,  reference  has  already  been  made 
(page  3).    On  the  latter  passage,  which  runs 

Ilium  etiam  lauri,  etiam  flevere  myricae. 
Pinifer  ilium  etiam  sola  sub  rupe  iacentem 
Maenalus,  et  gelidi  fleverunt  saxa  Lycaei, 
the  poet  was  free,  had  he  so  desired,  to  vary  his  treatment. 
For  an  instance  of  variant  treatment  of  the  perfect  indicative 
third  plural,  made  possible  by  elision,  Aeneid  6.191,201  may 
be  cited: 

ipsa  sub  ora  viri  caelo  venere  volantes, 


Inde  ubi  venere  ad  fauces  grave  olentis  Averni. 
Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  instance  of  varied  treatment, 
however,  is  Lucretius  6.2-5.  In  these  lines  the  poet,  using 
certain  metrical  'licenses',  has  dididerunt  and  dederunt  in  ver- 
ses 2  and  4,  differing  in  metrical  treatment  from  recreaverunt, 
rogarunt  and  genuere : 

dididerunt  quondam  praeclaro  nomine  Athenae 
et  recreaverunt  vitam  legesque  rogarunt, 

"Compare  also  Horace  Carm.  4.13.1-2. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  69 

et  primae  dederunt  solacia  dulcia  vitae, 

cum  genuere  virum  tali  cum  corde  repertum. 
The  metrical  treatment  of  proper  names  next  claims  our  at- 
tention. We  find  identical  treatment  in  the  large  majority 
of  cases,  especially  where  the  vocative  is  employed.  This 
is  due  partly  to  the  character  of  a  proper  name  as  such73,  partly 
to  metrical  necessity.  The  cases  in  which  proper  names  are 
repeated  with  variant  treatment  are  comparatively  few ;  in 
nearly  every  such  case  a  change  of  form  is  responsible  for  the 
variant  treatment.  In  other  instances  change  of  emphasis  in 
the  thought  determines  the  metrical  treatment :  see  notes  75-76 
below. 
Aeneid3.25i 

quae    Phoebo    pater    omnipotens,    mihi    Phoebus 

Apollo. 

Phoebus  Apollo   is   a  very  convenient  verse  close  in  hexa- 
meters74. 
Horace,  Serm.  1.7.23-24 

. . .  laudat  Brutum  laudatque  cohortem ; 

solem  Asiae  Brutum  appellat75. . . 
1.10.1-2        Nempe  incomposito  dixi  pede  currere  versus 

Lucili.    Quis  tarn  Lucili  fautor  ineptest76. . . 
Juvenal  8.147,  151    (only  a  slight  variation,  for  metrical  ex- 
pediency) : 

carpento  rapitur  pinguis  Lateranus,  et  ipse, 


cum  fuerit,  clara  Lateranus  luce  flagellum. 
11.125,        et  Mauri  celeres  et  Mauro  obscurior  Indus77, 

"The  force  and  value  of  the  proper  name  are  well  brought  out  in 
those  cases  in  which  a  speaker  uses  his  own  name  instead  of  em- 
ploying some  form  of  ego  or  meus:  compare  e.g.  Aen.  1.48:2.79:3.433:4. 
308:5.194,  354:6.510;  Plaut.  Most.  353;  Lucan  1.338-340;  Xen.  Anab. 


74  It  occurs  only  once,  however,  in  the  Aeneid. 

75  In  24  the  emphasis  is  on  solem  Asiae,   Persius's   designation  of 
Brutus,  rather  than  on  Brutum. 

"The  major  emphasis  in  Quis  .  .  .  est  is  on  fautor  inepte:  'who 
supports  even  Lucilius  to  that  extent?' 

"Compare  also  Aeneid  2.56-60:3.500:4.117-124,  142-150:6.162-164,  495- 
496,  705-714,  789-792,  888-897;  Bucolics  2.17-23:3.62:7.22-26:8.95-96,  96- 
98:9.26-27;  Ennius,  Annales  117;  Lucilius  93-94;  Catullus  56.1-3;  Hor- 
ace, Carm.  1.12.51-52:2.13.18;  Serm.  1.7.23-24,  10.2;  Juvenal  3-53  -5-149  * 


70  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

shows  clever  metrical  treatment.  Mauri  is  the  important  word 
in  the  first  part  of  the  clause,  Indus  in  the  second.  The  poet, 
therefore,  weakens  Mauro  doubly,  by  varying  the  metrical 
treatment  and  by  subjecting  its  last  syllable  to  elision. 

In  Vergil,  in  approximately  half  of  the  instances  of  the 
repetition  of  proper  names  with  identical  treatment,  metrical 
necessity  conditions  the  treatment,  if  there  is  to  be  repetition 
at  all.  In  other  poets  such  examples  outnumber  the  instances  of 
deliberate  identical  treatment  two  to  one  (see  again  page  44). 
It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  again,  at  this  point,  that  elision  is 
left  out  of  consideration.  I  cite  as  examples,  Aeneid  2.122,  128 
Hie  Ithacus  vatem  magno  Calchanta  tumultu 

vix  tandem,  magnis  Ithaci  clamoribus  actus. 
6.337,341     Ecce  gubernator  sese  Palinurus  agebat. 


sic  prior  adloquitur :  "quis  te,  Palinure,  deorum  .  .  ." 
Bucolics  2.69 

A  Corydon,  Corydon,  quae  te  dementia  cepit ! 
8.1,5  Pastorum  Musam  Damonis  et  Alphesiboei — 


Damonis  Musam  dicemus  et  Alphesiboei — 78 
10.37-38,41  Certe,  sive  mihi  Phyllis,  sive  esset  Amyntas 

seu  quicumque  furor — quid  turn,  si  fuscus  Amyntas; 

serta  mihi  Phyllis  legeret,  cantaret  Amyntas. 
Ennius,  Annales  in: 

sese  sic  memorant  "O  Romule,  Romule  die". .  . 
Catullus  58.1-2  Caeli,  Lesbia  nostra,  Lesbia  ilia, 

ilia  Lesbia, . . . 
Horace,  Carm.  2.14.1-2 

Eheu!  fugaces,  Postume,  Postume, 

labuntur  anni . .  . 
4.13.1-2        Audivere,  Lyce,  di  mea  vota,  di 

audivere,  Lyce :  fis  anus  . . . 
Ovid,  Met.  8.231-233 

At  pater  infelix,  nee  iam  pater,  "Icare",  dixit, 

8.269-271:11.125;  Ovid,  Heroides  5.29-32;  Martial  11.48.2-4;  Ausonius, 
Mosella  417-418. 
78  For  the  position  of  the  proper  name  here  see  above,  pp.  20-21. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  71 

"Icare",  dixit,  "ubi  es?  qua  te  regione  requiram? 

Icare",  dicebat,  pennas  aspexit  in  undis79. 
We  may  now  assemble  some  examples  of  repetition  with' 
deliberate  identical  metrical  treatment. 
Aeneid  3.437-438 

lunonis  magnae  primum  prece  numen  adora ; 

lunoni  cane  vota  libens,  dominamque  potentem. 
4.247-248     Atlantis  duri,  caelum  qui  vertice  fulcit, 

Atlantis,  cinctum  adsidue  cui  nubibus  atris. 
Bucolics  6.20-21 

addit  se  sociam,  timidisque  supervenit  Aegle, 

Aegle80,  naiadum  pulcherrima  . .  . 
8.55-56        certent  et  cycnis  ululae;  sit  Tityrus  Orpheus, 

Orpheus80  in  silvis,  inter  delphinas  Arion. 
8.93-94        terra,  tibi  mando;  debent  haec  pignora  Daphnim. 

Ducite    ad    urbe    domum,    mea    carmina,    ducite 

Daphnim81 
Catullus  64.285-286 

confestim  Penios  adest,  viridantia  Tempe, 

Tempe80  quae  silvae  cingunt  super  inpendentes. 

"Compare  also  Aeneid  1.553-554:2.36-49,  90-98,  371-382,  389-398,  462- 
466,  501-506,  518-541,  674-682,  769-784:3.209-210,  253-254,  523-524:4-252- 
258,  345-346,  416-421:5.322-323:6.166,  579-586:7.92-103;  Bucolics  1.31- 
32:2.1-6,  35-39,  56-60:3.76-79:4-58-59:5.8-18,  43-45:7.2-3,  16-20,  63,  70:8. 
77-78:9.10-18,  23-24,  46-50:10.37-41;  Catullus  8.12-19:29.5-9:45.21-23:52. 
1-4:62.20-26:92.1-2;  Horace,  Carm.  1.13.1-2:4.2.49-50;  Ovid,  Met.  4.142- 
143:5.625:6.273:13.130-179,  273-301:15.862-863;  Lucan,  Phar.  7.544-547; 
Seneca,  De  Corsica  (Poet.  Lat.  Min.  4  pp.  55'56)  i-S;  Propertius 
1.12.20:3.16.41:4.1.63-64,8.68-70;  Silius  Italicus  1.392-394;  Juvenal  1.125- 
126:5.135:7.145-147:8.159-160,  243-244;  Pervig.  Ven.  51-52.  In  Martial 
proper  names  are  repeated  with  great  skill  and  effectiveness.  See,  in 
addition  to  the  above  citations,  1.9.1-2,  33-1-3,  79-1-4,  117.1-18:2.7.1-5, 
19.1-4:3.61.1-2,  63.1-4:4.69.2-4:5.29.1-4,  58.1-8:6.35.2-6,  63.2-8:7.43-1-4, 
92.2-10 :8.5o.i8-i9  :io.43.i2,  89.1-5  :n.92.i-2  :i2.39.i-4. 

80  Compare  above,  p.  21,  note  37. 

81  Compare  what  was  said  above,  p.  20,  of  Vergil's  fondness  for  re- 
peating proper  names  at  verse-ends.      Compare  also  Aeneid  2.270-282, 
622-625:4.312-313,  694-700:5.116-117,  252-254:6.322-331,  403-4U,  467-475, 
539-559,  584-586,  703-711,  713-723,  766-770:747-48;  Bucolics  3.2,  60:5.57- 
66:7.1-9:8.26-29:10.72-73;  Terence,  Phormio  373-374;  Catullus  4-27:34- 
1-3:61.  124-125:62.5:65.20:68.09:78.1-5:95.1-6:100.1:112.1-2;  Ovid,  Tristia 
1.3.85-86;  Silius  Italicus  10.515-519;  Martial  1.109.19-21:5.24.1-15:8.5.1- 
2;  Ausonius,  Mosella  359-361. 


72  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

Tibullus  1.7.39-41 

Bacchus  et  agricolae  magno  confecta  labore 
pectora  tristitiae  dissolvenda  dedit. 

Bacchus  et  adflictis  requiem  mortalibus  affert. 
Martial   2.20.1      Carmina    Paulus   emit,    recitat   sua   carmina 

Paulus 
Claudian,  De  Raptu  Pros.  1.134-135 

Mars  clipeo  melior,  Phoebus  praestantior  arcu. 

Mars  donat  Rhodopen,  Phoebus  largitur  Amyclas. 
Finally,  I  cite  a  few  examples  of  the  combined  identical  and 
variant  treatment  of  proper  names.  In  nearly  every  case  a 
change  of  form  is  largely  instrumental  in  bringing  about  this 
treatment. 
Aeneid  2.318-319,  322 

Ecce  autem  telis  Panthus  elapsus  Achivom, 

Panthus  Othryades,  arcis  Phoebique  sacerdos, 

"Quo  res  summa  loco,  Panthu?    Quam  prendimus 
arcem  ?" 

Bucolics  2.31-33 

Mecum   una   in   silvis   imitabere   Pana   canendo — 
Pan  primus  calamos  cera  coniungere  pluris 
instituit;  Pan  curat  ovis  oviumque  magistros82. 

5.51-52         dicemus,  Daphnimque  tuum  tollemus  ad  astra; 

Daphnim   ad   astra    feremus:   amavit   nos   quoque 
Daphnis. 

Catullus  100. i,  5,  8 

Caelius  Aufilenum  et  Quintus  Aufilenam 


Cui  faveam  potius  ?    Caeli,  tibi :  nam  tua  nobis 

Sis  felix,  Caeli,  sis  in  amore  potens. 
Ovid,  Fasti  6.295,  298-299 

Esse  diu  stultus  Vestae  simulacra  putavi, 

Effigiem  nullam  Vesta  nee  ignis  habet. 
Stat  vi  terra  sua :  vi  stando  Vesta  vocatur. 
Persius  5.79-81 

Marcus  Dama.  papae!  Marco  spondente  recusas 
credere  tu  nummos?    Marco  sub  iudice  palles? 
Marcus  dixit:  ita  est;  adsigria,  Marce,  tabellas. 

83  The  Teubner  text  omits  lines  32-33. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  73 

Martial  10.101 

Elysio  redeat  si  forte  remissus  ab  agro 
ille  suo  felix  Caesare  Gabba  vetus, 

qui  Capitolinum  pariter  Gabbamque  iocantes 

audierit,  dicet:  "Rustice  Gabba,  tace"83. 

We  enter  now  upon  the  discussion  and  illustration  of  the 
metrical  treatment  of  nouns.  In  Vergil  nouns  are  repeated  more 
frequently  than  any  other  class  of  words  (page  63),  while  in 
the.other  poets  verbs  are  repeated  more  frequently;  in  Aeneid  6 
the  preponderance  of  examples  of  the  repetition  of  nouns  over 
those  of  the  recurrence  of  verbs  is  especially  marked. 

The  first  example  to  be  cited  here  will  illustrate  variant 
treatment;  in  some  cases,  at  least,  the  consideration  which 
prompted  the  variant  treatment  or  made  it  seem  desirable  may 
be  discerned.  See  Catullus  62.21-22 

Qui  natam  possis  complexu  avellere  matris, 

complexu  matris  retinentem  avellere  natam. 
In  these  two   lines  the  verb  avellere   receives    (necessarily) 
similar  treatment,  the  idea  contained  in  it  being  the  most  im- 
portant in  the  sentence.    Natam,  complexu  and  matris  receive 
variant  treatment.     The  variant  treatment  in  these  two  lines 
serves  also  as  a  diversion  from  Hespere,  qui  caelo  which  begins 
lines  22  and  26. 
Aeneid  3.80 

Rex  Anius,  rex  idem  hominum  Phoebique  sacerdos. 
3.119  taurum  Neptuno,  taurum  tibi,  pulcher  Apollo. 

Here,  it  may  be  said,  tibi  rather  than  the  second  taurum  needs 
the  weight  of  the  ictus. 
3.247-248     Bellum  etiam  pro  caede  bourn  stratisque  iuvencis, 

Laomedontiadae,  bellumne  inferre  paratis?84 
5.324  ecce  volat  calcemque  terit  iam  calce  Diores84. 

6.46  tempus  ait ;  "Deus,  ecce,  deus  . .  ,"84 

Horace,  Carm.  1.3.27-29 

Audax  lapeti  genus 

ignem  fraude  mala  gentibus  intulit. 

Post  ignem  aetheria  domo  . .  . 

"Compare  also  Aeneid  2.176-185:6.69-77;  Bucolics  5.20-30:6.7-12:8.81- 
55:9.53-61:10.2-10;  Catullus  64.19-21;  Ovid,  Amores  1.15.29-30;  Mar- 
tial 1 1. 80.  i -8. 

"Similar  treatment  would,  I  think,  have  been  more  effective  here. 


74  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

1.12.50-52  . . .  tibi  cura  magni 

Caesaris  fatis  data:  tu  secundo 

Caesare  regnes85. 
Seneca,  Medea  168 

NUTR.  Rex  est  timendus.     MED.  Rex  meus  fu- 

erat  pater. 
95°~952  •  •  •  haut  aliter  meum 

cor  fluctuatur.  Ira  pietatem  fugat 

iramque  pietas — cede  pietati,  dolor. 

Here  variant  treatment  (ira-iram)  and  identical  treatment  (in 
the  triple  pietas)  are  skillfully  combined. 
Ovid,  Fasti  2.85-86 

Saepe  sequens  agnam  lupus  est  a  voce  retentus, 

saepe  avidum  fugiens  restitit  agna  lupum. 
Here  variant  treatment  is  made  possible  or  at  least  helped  by  a 
skillfully  manipulated  polyptoton. 
The  situation  is  similar  in  Claudian,  De  IV  Con.  Hon.  Aug. 

349-350 

Nunc  eques  in  medias  equitum  te  consere  turmas, 
nunc  pedes  assistas  pediti86. 

We  come  now  to  instances  of  identical  metrical  treatment  in 
the  repetition  of  nouns.  This  treatment  is  far  more  frequent  in 
all  the  poets  than  variant  treatment.  In  a  large  number  of 
cases  identical  treatment  is  made  necessary  by  the  meter87 ;  in 
Vergil  the  instances  of  forced  and  of  deliberate  identical  treat- 
ment are  approximately  equal  in  number,  while  in  other  poets 
the  former  type  predominates.  I  cite  first  some  examples  of 


85  Here  the  nature  of  the  verse-forms  made  variant  treatment  ine- 
vitable, or  at  least  highly  probable,  if  Caesaris  and  Caesare  were  to 
be  used  in  adjacent  lines. 

86 1  refer  here  to  a  very  few  of  the  great  number  of  examples  of 
variant  treatment:  Aeneid  2.24-28,  127-129,  330-335,  468-470,  490-493, 
602,  632-633,  663-666,  733,  746-749,  777-783:3.265,  539-540:4.25-26,  420- 
424,  628,  629:6.86,  109-112,  310-312,  380,  406,  661-663,  857-859:10.361; 
Bucolics  1.6-7 :2.56-57,  63-64 :4.i5  :5.64 :6.32-37,  55-56 :8.s6-58 :9.io-n  ; 
Ennius,  Annales  187-191;  Terence,  Phormio  352-353,397-398;  Lucilius 
140,  1220-1221;  Catullus  31.1:112.1-2;  Lucretius  1.688-691;  Horace, 
Carm.  3.16.15;  Ovid,  Met.  7.198;  Lucan,  Phar.  8.194-196;  Seneca, 
Medea  487-488,  967-969;  Statius,  Silvae  1.3.99-102;  Juvenal  5.49-51,, 
iu  "7 157-158:10.98-101 ;  Ausonius,  Mosella  29-31,  355-356. 

87  Elison  is  again  disregarded. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  75 

identical  treatment  made  necessary  by  the  meter  (if  there  is 
to  be  repetition  at  all:  see  page  44). 
Aeneid  2.116,  118 

Sanguine  placastis  ventos  et  virgine  caesa, 

sanguine  quaerendi  reditus  . . . 
2.405-406    ad  caelum  tendens  ardentia  lumina  frustra, 

lumina,  nam  teneras  arcebant  vincula  palmas 
4.173-174     Extemplo  Libyae  magnas  it  Fama  per  urbes, 

Fama,  malum  qua  non  aliud  velocius  ullum. 
6.303,306     et  ferruginea  subvectat  corpora  cumba, 


matres  atque  viri,  defunctaque  corpora  vita. 
Bucolics   1.3-4 

nos  patriae  fines  et  dulcia  linquimus  arva: 

nos  patriam  fugimus  .  .  . 
Catullus  94.1-2 

Mentula  moechatur.     Moechatur  mentula  certe. 
Horace,  Carm.  1.35.15 

ad  arma  cessantes,  ad  arma88. 
Seneca,  Medea  55 

quae  scelere  parta  est,  scelere  linquenda  est  domus. 
Martial   1.47 

Nuper  erat  medicus,  nunc  est  vispillo  Diaulus: 

quod  vispillo  facit,  fecerat  et  medicus. 
Pervigilium  Veneris  53-56 

Ruris  hie  erunt  puellae  vel  puellae  fontium 


iussit  at  nudo  puellas  nil  Amori  credere89. 


88  This  type  of  repetition,  involving  a  phrase,  is  not  at  all  frequent 
in  Horace. 

89  Compare  also  (again,  to  save  space,  reference  is  made  to  a  small 
percentage  of  the  available  passages)    Aeneid  2.179-181,   187-193,  385- 
387,  389-392,  668:4.1-5,4-11,  8-9,   13-22,  409-416,  476-478,  495-498,  688- 
691 :6.5i-55,  136-141,  225-230,  231-233,  335-355,  403-405,  507-509,  587-591, 
599-604,  653-655,  695-698,  7I4-73I,  774-776,  812-819,  900-901:7.9-13,  30- 
36,  50-52;  Bucolics  1.47-52,  75-78:3.44-48,  93-98:6.25:7.52-56,  62-64:8.10- 
12,  92-93,  103-108:10.3,  53-54J  Ennius,  Scenica  322-323;  Lucilius  27-30, 
1334-1335;    Lucretius    2.54-58;    Catullus    3.3-4:34.2-4:49.5-6:51.13-15:61. 
128-140:62.42-47,    53-55:67.12-14:82.1-4;    Horace,    Carm.    4.2.13;    Epod. 
14.5-6;  Serm.  1.6.45-46;  Ovid,  Amores  1.3.20-21;  Fasti  1.68;  Met.  i.iu, 
504-505,  556:12.241;  Tristia  1.3.86;  Tibullus  1.2.7-9;  Propertius  2.3.19- 


76  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

For  examples  of  the  deliberate  identical  treatment  of  nouns, 
compare  Aeneid  2.162,  170 

Omnis  spes  Danaum  et  coepti  fiducia  belli 


spes  Danaum,  fractae  vires,  aversa  deae  mens. 
4-527»  53°    rura  tenant,  somno  positae  sub  nocte  silenti 

solvitur  in  somnos,  oculisve  aut  pectore  noctem  . . . 
6.765  educet  silvis  regem  regumque  parentem  . . . 

Bucolics  3.3,  5 

Infelix  o  semper,  oves,  pecus!  ipse  Neaeram 

hie  alienus  ovis  custos  bis  mulget  in  hora. 
9.47-48         Ecce  Dionaei  processit  Caesaris  astrum, 

astrum,  quo  segetes  gauderent  f  rugibus  . . . 
One  of  the  best  examples  of  this  type  of  iteration  is  Plautus ; 
Most.  561-612,  especially  in  the  Danista's  words  in  603-605 

Cedo  faenus,  redde  faenus,  faenus  reddite. 

Daturin  estis  faenus  actutum  mihi  ? 

Datur  faenus  mihi  ? 

To  this  Tranio  replies  with  biting  sarcasm,  in  605-606,  Faenus 
illic,  faenus  hie!  nescit  quidem  nisi  faenus  fabularier.    'Interest 
to  right  of  us,  interest  to  left  of  us'90  cries  Tranio,  etc. 
Catullus  62.60-61 

non  aequomst  pugnare,  pater  cui  tradidit  ipse, 

ipse  pater  cum  matre,  quibus  parere  necesse  est. 
Horace,  Epp.  1.1.53 

O  cives,  cives,  quaerenda  pecunia  primumst. 

22,  8.7-8:4.9.67-68;  Lucan,  Phar.  1.25-27:3.647-6547-157-160,  551-557:8. 
474-480;  Silius  Italicus  1.517-519:15.580-583;  Statius,  Silvae  1.6.76-81; 
Juvenal  3.158:4.35-36:12.111;  Martial  1.76.1-2:2.20.1,  41.1-4:5.29.1-4:8.5. 
1-2:9.88.1-3,  97.1-12;  Ausonius,  Mosella  196-197;  Pervig.  Ven.  28-35, 
37-41,  76-77;  Prudentius,  Hymnus  ad  Incensum  Lucernae  154. 

80  In  Most.  561-612  only  once  does  faenus  fail  to  show  complete 
coincidence  of  word  accent  and  ictus:  this  is  in  605,  where  the  edi- 
tors read,  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  datur  faenus  mihi?  This 
reading  is  surely  wrong;  we  need  the  coincidence,  if  anywhere,  im- 
mediately before  Tranio's  comment  Faenus  illic,  faenus  hie  (see  above, 
p.  9).  Read  datur  mihi  (mi}  faenus  f  and  we  have  coincidence  re- 
stored, as  everywhere  else  in  this  whole  passage.  P  reads  Date  mihi 
fenus.  Leo  suggested  datin  faenus?  (if  I  understand  his  critical  note)  ; 
this  too  would  restore  the  coincidence  of  ictus  and  word-accent. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  77 

Seneca,  Medea  107-108 

concesso,  iuvenes,  Indite  iurgio, 

hinc  illinc,  iuvenes,  mittite  carmina. 
Martial  1.9.1-2 

Bellus  homo  et  magnus  vis  idem  Cotta,  videri : 

sed  qui  bellus  homo  est,  Cotta,  pusillus  homo  est91. 
Examples  of  combined  identical  and  variant  treatment  of 
repeated  nouns,  wherein  may  be  seen  harmony  and  variety  side 
by  side,  are  Aeneid  3-539-54O 

Et  pater  Anchises :  "Bellum,  o  terra  hospita,  portas ; 

bello  armantur  equi,  bellum  haec  armenta  minantur". 

4.134,  138-139 

Poenorum  expectant,  ostroque  msignis  et  auro 

cui  pharetra  ex  auro,  crines  nodantur  in  aurum, 
aurea  purpuream  subnectit  fibula  vestem. 
Bucolics   10.21,  28-29 

Omnes    "Unde   amor   iste"    rogant    "tibi?"    Venit 
Apollo : 

"Ecquis   erit   modus?"   inquit.     "Amor  non   talia. 

curat ; 

nee  lacrimis  crudelis  Amor,  nee  gramina  rivis". 
Lucilius  244-246 

bulgam.    et    quidquid    habet    nummorum,    secum 

habet  ipse, 

cum   bulga   cenat,    dormit,    lavit.      Omnia   in   una 
sunt  homini  bulga:  bulga  haec  devincta  <la>certo 

est. 

91  Here  the  adjectives  are  the  important  words. — For  a  very  few  out 
of  the  all  but  numberless  examples  of  this  type  of  iteration  see  Aeneid 
2.157-158,  443-447,  508-511,  608-609,  768-772:4-56-62,  200-204,  342-348, 
356-358,  404-406,  4!2-4i4,  435-438:6.6-7,  78-82,  92-97,  159-166,  179-186, 
203-206,  268-271,  289-294,  415-419,  491-492,  523-525,  614-615,  839-842:7.23- 
27;  Bucolics  1.19-25:2.60-62,  68:3.1-5,  104-106:4.3,  60-62:5.32-33:6.47-52: 
7.41-45,  65-68:8.43-47,  55-61,  82-83:10.75-76;  Ennius,  Annales  1-2,  177, 
288-289;  Plautus,  Most.  637-642;  Lucilius  839-840,  1015-1016,  1326-1333; 
Catullus  42.11-12:6245-56:64.256-259;  Horace,  Carm.  2.16.1-6:4.13.1; 
Epp.  1.1.65-66;  Ovid,  Fasti  6.299;  Heroides  10.93-94;  Met.  1.481-482; 
Lucan,  Phar.  2.448-450:5.546-548:6.257-259;  Seneca,  Medea  649-650,  932- 
933;  Silius  Italicus  3.425-426;  Statius,  Silvae  1.5.48-49;  Martial  1.117. 
2-5  :6.35.i-6;  Juvenal  7.197-198;  Ausonius,  Mosella  323-324,  479-481. 


78  Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry 

Horace,  Serm.  1.4.48-49,  53,  56  "At  pater  ardens 

saevit,  quod  meretrice  nepos  insanus  arnica 

audiret  leviora,  pater  si  viveret?..." 

quo  personatus  pacto  pater  . . . 
Martial  2.19 

Felicem  fieri  credis  me,  Zoile,  cenaf 
Felicem  cena,  Zoile,  deinde  tua? 

Debet  Aricino  conviva  recumbere  clivo, 

quem  tua  felicem,  Zoile,  cena  facit92. 
11.18.1-3      Donasti,  Lupe,  rus  sub  urbe  nobis, 

sed  rus  est  mihi  maius  in  fenestra. 

Rus  hoc  dicere,  rus  potes  vocare?93 

Finally,  attention  may  be  called  to  some  alterations  of  quan- 
tity in  repetitions;  such  alterations  are  due,  it  would  seem, 
to  metrical  exigencies.  On  Horace,  Carm.  1.32.11,  et  Lycum 
nigris  oculis  nigroque,  Mr.  T.  E.  Page  wrote  as  follows :  'When 
the  Roman  poets  repeat  a  word  they  often  so  place  it  that  the 
ictus  falls  differently  on  it  in  the  two  positions.  ...  In  conse- 
quence of  this  fondness  the  poets  often  absolutely  alter  the 
quantity  of  a  word  when  they  repeat  it".  Since  it  has  been 
shown  in  the  preceding  pages  that  repetition  with  identical 
treatment  is,  to  say  the  least,  quite  as  common  as  repetition 
with  variant  treatment,  and,  further,  that  identical  treatment 
is  regularly  employed  where  emphasis,  emotional  or  rhetorical 
effects  are  desired,  it  seems  hardly  right  to  attribute  the 
instances  of  the  alteration  of  quantity  to  the  poet's  fondness  for 
repetition  with  a  changed  accent,  as  Mr.  Page  seems  to  do. 
Further,  Mr.  Page  combines,  without  differentiation,  examples 


92  This  epigram  has  been  quoted  twice  before  (pp.  62  and  71,  foot- 
note 79),  for  felicem  and  Zoile,  respectively.  Many  of  the  epigrams 
thus  contain  two  or  more  parts  of  speech  with  interesting  metrical 
treatment. 

*3  Compare  also  Aeneid  2.314-317,  315-322:4.151-164,  555-560:6.60- 
73,64-68,  204-208,  820-832;  Bucolics  2.17-23:3.102-109:8.47-50,  67-70; 
Ennius,  Scenica  234-236;  Plautus,  Most.  248-251,  832-838;  Lucilius 
20-22;  Terence,  Phormio  385-386;  Lucretius  4.416-419,  1257-1261;  Catul- 
lus 64.213-216;  Seneca,  Medea  290-293;  Tibullus  2.6.20-27;  Persius  2.53- 
59;  Martial  1.100.1-2:3.63.1-4;  Pervig.  Yen.  2-3,  49-52;  Prudentius, 
Hymnus  ante  Sompnum  7-8. 


Repetition  In  Latin  Poetry  79 

which  show  two  different  types  of  things:  (a)  alteration  of 
vowel  quantity,  as  in  Theocritus  6.19,  TO,  ^  KaXa  KaXa  W^avTai, 
Lucretius  4.1259  liquidis  et  liquida  (see  Munro  ad  loc.),  Lucre- 
tius 2.452,  464,  466  fluvido,  fluvida,  fluvidus  (see  Munro  ad 
loc.),  and  (b)  change  in  syllable  quantity,  as  in  Horace's  own 
nigris  -  nigro,  and  Vergil,  Aeneid  2.663  ante  ora  P&trts*  patrem, 
etc.  Examples  of  (b)  are  not  rare;  those  of  (a),  with  which 
alone  we  are  concerned  here,  are,  I  think,  rare94.  At  any  rate 
Lucilius  354-355  and  Martial  9.11.14-15  animadvert  unfavor- 
ably on  'Ape?  "Apes  in  Iliad  5-3I95.  Examples  from  Latin, 
in  addition  to  those  cited  above,  are  Vergil,  Bucolics  3.79 

et  longum  "Formose,  vale,  vale",  inquit,  "lolla". 
6.43-44        ....    Hylan  nautae  quo  fonte  relictum 

clamassent,  ut  litus  "Hyla,  Hyla"  omne  sonaret. 


94  Compare  e.g.  beside  those  given  above,  Ovid,  Met.   13.607-608.     I 
disregard,  for  obvious  reasons,  passages  showing  the  two  possible  met- 
rical treatments  of  such  words  as  mihi,  tibi. 

95  See  Leaf  ad  loc.     Reference  may  be  allowed  here  to  some  perti- 
nent Greek  examples:     Theocr.  8.19;  Callim.  Hym.  lov.  55. 


VITA. 

Hubert  McNeill  Poteat  was  born  December  12,  1886,  at 
Wake  Forest,  North  Carolina.  He  was  graduated  from  Wake 
Forest  College  with  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  1906. 
In  1905-1908  he  was  Instructor  in  Latin  in  the  College,  pur- 
suing, at  the  same  time,  his  studies  for  the  degree  of  Master 
of  Arts,  which  he  received  in  1908.  In  1908-1910  he  held  at 
Columbia  University  the  Drisler  Fellowship  in  Classical  Phi- 
lology. It  was  his  great  privilege  there  to  work  under  the 
direction  of  Professors  James  Chidester  Egbert,  Charles 
Knapp,  Nelson  Glenn  McCrea,  George  N.  Olcott,  Harry  Thurs- 
ton  Peck,  James  S.  Reid,  James  Rignall  Wheeler,  and  Dr. 
Roscoe  Guernsey.  To  all  these  scholars  he  desires  to  express 
his  deep  gratitude  for  their  interest,  advice  and  guidance.  His 
thanks  are  due  especially  to  Professor  Knapp,  who  suggested 
to  him  the  theme  of  this  treatise,  and  by  his  constant  and 
inspiring  aid  made  possible  its  completion. 

In  1910-1912  he  was  Master  in  Latin  in  the  Hotchkiss 
School.  In  August,  1911,  he  was  elected  Professor  of  Latin  in 
Wake  Forest  College,  his  work  to  begin  in  September,  1912. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


LD  21-100w-ll,'49(B7146sl6)476 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made 
4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

FEB  1 6  2009 

SENT  ON  ILL 

JUL  2  4  2006 


DD20  6M  9-03 


